ML20211A076
| ML20211A076 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 09/30/1986 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1127 OL, NUDOCS 8610100771 | |
| Download: ML20211A076 (136) | |
Text
.Q UlN11EU STATES
] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 50-456 OL 50-457 OL COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2)
O V -
LOCATION: CHICAGO, ILLINOIS PAGES: 12852 - 12961 DATE: TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 1986 779.0/v\\ 1r eJ i Q 8 2i u Ji O de b 7by v; ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
O OfficialReporters 444 North CapitolStreet Washington, D.C. 20001 "84 '2f 2 "t8 %
(2023 347-3700 NATIONWIDE COVERACE
12852 m
I
)
1 2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 3 NUCLE AR R EGULATORY COMMISSION 4 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 5 .
__________________x 6 :
In the Matter of: :
7 : Docket No. 5 0-456 COMMOtMEALTH EDISON COMPANY : 50-457 8 :
(Braidwood Station, Units 1 :
9 and 2) :
__________________x 10 11 s' Page: 12,852 - 12,961
-( 12
(_,-) United States District Court House 13 Courtroom 1919 Chicago, Illinois 60604 14 Tuesday, September 30, 1986 15 16 The hearing in the above-entitled matter reconvened 17 at 2:00 P. M.
18 BEFORE:
19 J UDG E H ERB ERT G ROSS MAN, Chairman 20 Atomic Safe ty and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 21 Wa shington, D. C.
22 J UDG E RICH ARD F. COLE, Member, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 23 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
24
/h JUDG E A. DIXON CALLIHAN, Membe r ,
25 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
\-/ U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Sonntaq Reporting Se rvi ce, _ Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12853 w-1 Washington, D. C.
2 APPEARANCES:
3 On behalf of the Applicant:
4 MICHAEL I. MILLER, E SQ .
JOSEPH G ALLO, ESQ.
5 Isham, Lincoln & Beale Three First National Plaza 6 Chicago, Illinois 60602 7
- On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory 8 Commission Staff
9 GREGORY ALAN BERRY, ESQ.
ELAINE I. CHAN, E SQ .
10 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7335 Old Georgetown Road 11 Bethesda, Maryland 20014 j ) 12 On behalf of the Intervenor: ,
13 ROB ERT GUILD, ESQ .
14 15
- . 16 i 17 18 19
- '20 21 22 l 23 f 24 l .) 2s i
Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12854
('S 1 TESTIMONY OF B OBBY G. TREECE KENNETH 'I110 MAS KOSTAL 2 R ANDALL L. KURTZ 3 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. GALLO: 12872 4
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION 5 BY MR. GUILD: 12877 6
7 BOARD EXAMINATION BY J UDG E G ROSSMAN : 12885 8
BOARD EXAMINATION 9 BY JUDG E COLE: 12898-10 BOARD EXAMINATION -
BY JUDGE GROSSMAN: 12904 11 i BOARD EXAMINATION <
12 BY J UDG E CALLIH AN: 12905 13 BOARD EXAMINATION BY JUDGE GROSSMAN: 12907 14 CROSS EXAMINATION 15 BY MR. GUILD: 12910 16 BOARD EXAMINATION BY J UDG E COLE: 12915 17 BOARD EXAMINATION ;
18 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN: 12918 l
! 19 CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY MR. GUILD: 12918
, 20 BOARD EXAMINATION 21 BY J UDG E G ROSSMAN : 12921 22 CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. BERRY: 12923 23 i
BOARD EXAMINATION
! 24 BY JUDGE COLE: 12927 l
l Sonntaa Reportino Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 -
l 12855 l
,-~ l
(,
1 CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY MR. GUILD: 12928 2
REDIRECT EXAMINATION 3 BY MR. G ALLO: 12939 [
4 BOARD EXAMINATION BY J UDGE GROSSMAN: 12942 5
BOARD EXAMINATION 6 BY JUDG E GROSSMAN: 12945 7 RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. GUILD: 12946 6
l- BOARD EXAMINATION- '
.9 BY J UDG E G ROSMAN 12953 10 EXHIBIT INDEX MARKED R ECEIV ED O 11 12 Board Exhibit No. 6 for identification 12868 13
- Applicant's Exhibit No. 122 12882 14 Prefiled testimony of Bobby G. Treece,
-15 Kenneth Thomas Kostal and Randall L. Kur tz 12882 16 Applicant's Exhibits 120 and 121 12883 17 Intervenors' Exhibit No.136 18 for identification 12935 19 Intervenors' Exhibit No. 136 12938 20 21-22 23
( 24 Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12856
'p J
l JUDGE GROSSMAN: The hearing is reconvened.
2 This is the 65th day of hearing.
3 We have a few preliminary matters before we go on 4 to the witnesses.
5 For one, we were notified last week by Staff that 6 there is another alleger, and we do have a memorandum 7 regarding that, and it appears as though, of the eight 8 enumerated allegations, that the last three might be 9 relevant, and Staff has indicated that if we determine 10 that they are, Staff is prepared to turn the memorandum h
\,_/
11 over .to Applicant and Intervenor under the protective 12 order that we have used in the proceeding, which would I
13 limit disclosure only to the attorneys.
14 Do I understand, Mr. Berry, that that would also 15 include making known to them the name of the alleger?
16 MR. BERRY: No, it doesn't, Mr. Chairman.
17 I will direct the Board's attention to the second 18 to the last paragraph on Page 2 of the September 19th t
19 letter that the Staff counsel sent to the Board where we 20 indicated that at the time of the writing. of the letter, 21 Staff counsel wasn' t in a position to represent to the 22 Board that confidentiality had been granted to the 23 alleger.
24 Now, subsquent to that, it's come to my attention 1
l Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
.. .. _ _ . . ~. .-. .. - .= . - - - . -- _- -
. 12857 I O
G r 1 that the alleger has, in fact, r equested
- 2 confidentiality; that I understand that confidentiality a 3 has been granted by the NRC. ,
4 However, the Commission Policy Statement generally 5 requires that that agreement be consummated in a -
6 written -- in an agreement.
! 7 As of this date, Staff has not yet received that t
8 agreement; but it's my understanding that, in fact, ,
9 there is confidentiality. It's been requested and 10 granted.
.11 So, consequently, under the Commission's Policy t 12 Statement, only the Commission itself can order the 13 disclosure of the identity of .the confidential source.
14 So although as we represented in the September 19th -
l t 15- letter, that we're willing to make available a copy of -
L l
16 the memorandum that was served on the Board, you will l
17 note that copy was redacted to delete the alleger's 18 identity and also any information that may identify him, f- 19 and we' re prepared to make that information available to
-20 the parties.
21 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Okay. Well, that's fine.
22 Why don't you do that, and then we'll hear further 23 on the matter.
l24 It's difficult for the Board to determine whether l
Sonntaq Reporting Se rvice, Ltd. ,
Geneva, Illinois 60134
- (312) 232-0262
12858 O
1 the general nature of what is purported to be the 2 allegations that might be relevant here is due to 3 Staf f's summarization or whether the allegations 4 themselves were of such a general nature.
5 If it's the latter, it doesn't appear as though the 6 allegations are significant; but it's impossible for us 7 to determine.
8 So why don't we at least go forward with that offer 9 to turn the materials over; and perhaps we'll hear 10 further from Staff as to the allegations themselves so 11 that we can make a further determination as to whether
(
12 we would put the Board in a position of asking that the 13 materials be turned over.
14 MR. BERRY: That will be fine, Mr. Chairman.
15 I would just note, again, tha t, as pointed out in 16 the letter that we served on the Board and the parties,
- 17 this matter was reported to the Board three days after 18 the allegations were first made, so, consequently, the 19 Staff, as of the writing of the letter, hadn't had an 20 opportunity to conduct any preliminary investigation to 21 determine whether there was any substantial merit to the 22 allega tions. My information is, as of this date, that 23 still hasn't been done.
- 24 I understand that, as is customary in the Region Sonntaq Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12859 m
'l 1
1 now, that an Allegation Review Board meeting either is t
1 2 presently scheduled or has taken place in the last day 3 or so, at which time these allegations will be referred
., 4 to, assigned to, an Inspector for review and followed 5 up.
6 I'm not in a position to state any more at this 7 time; and within the next day or so, I will have more to 8 report to the Board.
9 J UDG E G ROSSMAN : Okay. But we will then hear i 10 further from you shortly?
i 11 MR. BERRY: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Tha t's fine..
13 Any further preliminary matters?
14 Mr. Miller. -
15 MR. MILLER: Thank you, your Honor.
16 I'd like to report to the Board that in the last 17 two weeks, I have contacted Mr. McGregor's attorney, Mr.
18 Geocaris, provided him with copies of the transcript of 19 Mr. McGregor's testimony before the Board and asked him 20 whether or not he contemplated that his client would be 21 appearing here -- would be able to appear here soon.
22 Mr. Geocaris assured me that his client would be 23- prepared to take the stand again upon receipt of some
( 24 written notification from the appropriate authority in Sonntac Reportino Service, Ltd.
- Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12860 m
1 Washington or in the Region confirming the oral 2 information that we all, I guess, heard off the record, 3 that the investigation with respect to Mr. McGregor has 4 been closed in a manner that's satisf actory to him.
5 I don't know who to address the inquiry to as to 6 how we go about getting such a writing.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, we put the ball back 8 in Mr. Berry's court, so he'll just have to determine 9 who to contact and see that the matter is resolved 10 quickly.
[
11 Mr. Berry.
'%J 12 MR. BERRY: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
13 It's my understanding that the Office of General 14 Counsel -- the part of the office of General Counsel 15 that represents OIA, you know, has been consulted on 16 this matter, and the transcript -- the salient portion 17 of the transcript has been forwarded to the Office of 18 Inspections and Audits, OIA, not Office of 19 Investigations, and that I'm informed that they are 20 requested to submit a letter to the Board basically 21 confirming the matters we discussed, you know, some 22 weeks past.
23 I understand that that's in preparation, and it (Oj 24 should be served, you know, seasonably.
Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 -
12861
,n 1 I guess I should point out at this time that it's 2 also come to my attention that, in addition to the 3 investigations which Mr. McGregor alluded to when he was 4 with us last, that the office of Inspections and Audits 5 is presently conducting another investigation into 6 certain other matters.
7 They have interviewed, I'm told, a number of people 8 in the NRC's Region III office, and among them are Mr.
9 McG rego r.
10 I'm informed by my colleague, Mr. Treby, that Mr.
[)
%J 11 McGregor -- and I understand that Mr. Treby's had 12 communications with him -- has expressed the reservation 13 to him about resuming the stand prior to the completion 14 of this subsequent investigation OIA's conducting.
15 So in that respect, I bring that to the Board's 16 attention because it's slightly at variance with what I 17 heard frcm Mr. Miller; and although my information is 18 secondhand, I would bring that to the Board's attention.
19 As far as whether that would be a ground on 20 delaying Mr. McGregor's reappearance, I suspect that it 21 might be food for Mr. McGregor's personal attorney to 22 make any arguments in favor of that course of action.
23 I understand that Mr. Geocaris, Mr. McGregor's Dr
( ) 24 attorney, is unavailable this week, but would be Sonntaq Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
E 12862 1- available early -- when we resume early next week to 2 appear before the Board, if that's in order.
3 But just to summarize again briefly, it's my 4 understanding that the Office of Inspections and Audits 5 is conducting another investigation into certain 4
6 activities or certain incidents of possible wrongdoing 7 within the Region, and they have interviewed scores of 8 people in the office. I believe Mr. McGregor was one of 9 those individuals; and Mr. McGregor has indicated, at i
10 least to Mr. Treby, he had reservations about resuming 11 his testimony prior to the completion of that 12 investigation.
13 So there may be other information that will come to
, 14 my attention later this week or the other parties' or i 15 Mr. McGregor's personal attorney may have; but I thought
- 16 that it was appropriate to notify the Board at this time 17 that that was a consideration that has come to the 18 Staf f's attention.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: My understanding is that you 20 are not saying that Mr. .McGregor is the subject of that 21 investigation, and so we won' t push you into any 22 statement with regard to that, other than to acknowledge l'
r 23 that you haven't said that, s ,) 24 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, as a matter of i Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12863 yCT 1 public record, the Chicago Tribune carried a story -- I 2 _ don't have a copy before me -- but where the writer 3 asserts that he's been informed -- I guess counsel has 4 one --
5 MR. BERRY: Yes.
6 (Indica ting. )
7 MR. GUILD: -- that there is an internal 8 investigation to see who leaked documents from the NRC 9 Staff.
10 of course, that was the subj ect of some discussion,
, 11 if you recall, during Mr. McGregor's testimony; namely,
\
f- 12 the question of whether or not it was proper to inquire
! 13 into whether he had any hand in releasing documents to 14 Intervenors or to the press or what have.you.
15 I don't have any personal knowledge one way -or the 16 other except having gotten some documents; but I hear 17 Mr. Berry to say Mr. McGregor expressed to his counsel a 18 reluctance to appear.
19 Under those circumstances, it seems perfectly 20 reasonable that he would be reluctant to, if, in fact, 21 the OIA investigation is the one referred to in the 22 Chicago Tribune, 23 MR. BERRY: I would only note at this point, 24 Mr. Chairman -- it's a point that I made on a number of Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12864 V
1 occasions when we discussed this matter before, and that 2 is that this hearing -- the purpose of this hearing is 3 to inquire into the Applicant's fitness for an operating 4 license.
5 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is not on trial 6 here; and as we pointed out time and again, we don't 7 believe that a f ar-reaching inquiry into internal 8 operations of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is 9 within the scope of this particular proceeding, and that 10 I indicated that the Staff would object and would object
[
N 11 vigorously into the inquiry of any scope of the 12 investigations that may have been launched by the office 13 of Inspections and Audits against Mr. McGregor or any 14 other NRC witness that appear in this proceeding.
15 And in that connection, in that vein, the Staff 16 regards the matter of investigation of the type that's 17 described in this newspaper article as to be beyond the 18 scope of this proceeding, and we would object to any 19 inquiry into this subj ect matter or circumstances 20 surrounding it.
21 MR. MILLER: Judge Grossman --
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, I would hope that the 23 NRC investigatory teams would spend as much time on l
(Oj 24 examining wrongdoing as they do apparently in examining l
Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i
~1 12865 g)
\~,
I whistle blowers.
- 2 Having scores of people interviewed with regard to 3 the release of the documents that I read here in the 4 newspaper are scores more people than were interviewed 5 with regard to the original allegation.
15 That, I think, might be apparent to people who have 7 been reading about this matter; but, in any event, 8 that's apparently --
9 MR. BERRY: Mr. Chairman --
10 J UDG E G ROSSMAN : -- the situation.
'A .' 11 Mr. Ber ry.
12 MR. BERRY: Yes, sir. I would just like 13 briefly to respond to that.
14 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has a strong 15 interest and a strong public interest in preserving the l 16 integrity of its . process.
I 17 The Chairman mentioned wrongdoing. I believe tha t, 18 you know, there are provisions, regulatory and -
l 19 statutory, for disclosure of information that should not 20 be disclosed to the public, and if that were the case, I 21 believe the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is entitled,
- 22 you know, to preserve, particularly when it involves a l 23 matter of divulging, you know, the identity of a
~
24 confidential source, and as well the Nuclear Regulatory i
i Sonntaq Reporting S 3 rvi ce, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 i
(312) 232-0262
12866 O
J 1 Commission is also interested in investigating safety 4
2 allegations and other matters within .its statutory 3 manda te.
4 So I'm not privy' to the details of this. As I 5 mentioned before, that neither the Office of 6 Investigations nor the Office of Inspections and Audits 7 -- disclose -- you know, take into confidence the i
j 8 individuals who have no need to know, so in~that i
!) connection, you know, there may well be a valid purpose;-
10 and I would assume if the Office of Inspections and
- 11 Audits is launching an investigation, there must be a 12 good reason for it.
4 13 With that, I'll just close.-
, 14 MR. GALLO: Judge Grossman, I would request i
15 / that the Board, in turn, request Mr. Geocaris to make a 16 special appearance so.that he can tell us on the record, 17 what the position of his client is, and that we need not I 18 speculate, based on these patches of information each l_ 19 counsel has, with respect to Mr. McGregor's intentions 20 or understandings.
r- 21 J UDG E ' G ROSSMAN : .Mr. Gallo, you appear more-22 and more like a frustrated criminal attorney.
23" We're not trying any criminal cases here; and I i
-24 really ' don't think we ought to get into the allegations I
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
- Geneva, Illinois 60134 i (312) 232-0262
.= - -. . . - . - . - . . _ _ _ . - - - - ~
12867 ,
(-%
1 and the investigations that the NRC is conducting --
2 MR. GALLO: You misunderstand the purpose --
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- with regard to persons 4 -who have appeared here.
4 5 MR. G ALLO: No. You misunderstand the
~6 purpose of my suggestion.
7 I mean, we don't know whether Mr. McGregor would be 8- satisfied with simply a letter on .the initial OIA 9 investigation closing that matter, or as suggested. by
-10 Mr. Berry, 'that perhaps he has reservations because of 11' the second investigation.
~
- 12 It seems to me Mr. Geocaris can'put us straight on I
13 that point, and it would. be appropriate for him to do [
l-l 14 that.
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, Mr. Gallo, I think, L 16 just from reading this newspaper article and hearing 17 what Mr. Berry had to say, that we can assume that 18 'everyone who is being interviewed in the NRC office with 19 regard to that latter inves,tigation would be 20 apprehensive about testifying here.
l 21 I don't see that it serves any purpose to get any 22 further into that.
23 Do we have any other preliminary matters?
24 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I would only ask
~
i~
Sonntaa Reportina Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12868 1 that the newspaper article that counsel for Staff has 2 passed around to the Board and parties be marked in some 3 fashion so that the record will reflect what the 4 . reference is.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes, fine.
6 Why don't we just mark it as Board Exhibit --
7 MR. BERRY: 6.
. 8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- Board Exhibit 6 for 9 identification, and we'll have it travel with the record 10 as though admitted into evidence.
, 11 (The document was thereupon marked Board 12 Exhibit No. 6 for identification on the 13 30th of September, 1986.)
14 MR. BERRY: Staff would object to the 15 admission of the document.
l 16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Pa rdon ?
17 MR. BERRY: Staff would obj ect to the i
18 admission into evidence of the document, r.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: We are not admitting it into 20 evidence because it's not relevant to the proceeding; i 21 but we did discuss it and we might just as well have the
- 22 document included with all the others so that anyone 23 reading the transcript would be able to refer to it.
24 Anything further before we get on to the witnesses?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
- - ~ . - .- - - - -
12869 rm U
1 MR. GUILD: Only, Judge, that we had a 2 discussion among counsel off the record, and perhaps 3 this is an appropriate time to mention it.
4 There have been certain updates and revisions to a 5 number of pieces of data and materials underlying 6 Applicant's first panel in their principal rebuttal 7 case -- that's the BCAP panel -- the latest given me 8 today by counsel, and I think we' re in agreement, with 9 the Board's permission, we won't start that panel until 10 tomorrow.
11 I need to do some more calculations based on the 12 most recent data.
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. That sounds fine to 14 us.
- 15 That panel tomorrow will be the persons presenting 16 the blue bound --
17 MR. MILLER: Yes, sir; with the exception of 18 Mr. Kostal and Mr. Thorsell, who will appear separately l 19 but together.
l 20 They are responsible for the engineering 21 evaluations of BCAP.
(
22 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Okay. They will appear 23 after that panel tomorrow consisting of Mr. Thorsell, 1
(3) 24 Mr. Shevlin, Mr. Wozniak and Mr. Smith; is that correct?
Sonntaa Repor ting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262
12870
/"%
f 1 MR. MILLER: Mr. Kaushal, Dr. Kaushal, instead 2 of Mr. Thorsell. Kaushal, Smith, Wozniak and Shevlin.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
4 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, that is Applicant's 5 proposed way of treating those; and Intervenors do 6 object to the presentation of that group of witnesses as 7 a panel for cross examination purposes.
8 I have no problem with this group that's now before
, 9 us taken as a panel, but I intend separate examination
- 10 of a number of the persons on the first panel.
fil I've discussed this with counsel for the Applicant.
12 I have no obj ection to - taking Messrs. Kostal and 13 Thorsell as a panel -- that would be the second panel --
l 14 but I would propose that Dr. Kaushal be taken l
l 15 separately -- he's the director of the BCAP program --
16 and that the two inspection supervisors, Messrs. Shevlin ,
17 and Wozniak, be taken separately, and Mr. Smith, who was la the BCAP Q A Director, be taken separately.
l- 11 9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: And you don't feel you can l
20 question them individually while they are sitting as a 21 panel ?
l 22 MR. GUILD: I can. There's no -- I'm not l
23 asking that they be sequestered, Judge. It's not really l %
24 an issue of that.
I l
l Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
L Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l _ _,- _ . ___- .. -. .
12871 V-1 It has to do, in part, with simply the 2 effectiveness and efficiency of examination.
3 I think largely there will be time wasted with 4 three gentlemen sitting there responding to no questions 5 for a considerable period of time.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Let me point out, Mr. Guild, 7 you have the option of questioning anyone you wish. You 8 don't have to accept the panel answer to any question 9 you pose.
10 MR. GUILD: I understand that, Judge.
[ ) 11 And if the parties insist or the Board desires, I
- 12. have no problem having all four of them sit there while 13 I question one individually.
14 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Okay. That's a matter you 15 can discuss with Mr. Miller or Mr. Gallo, because it 16 would be for their convenience or their witness' 17 convenience not to have to sit during an examination; 18 b2t you are certainly entitled to question one person 19 exclusively and then go on to another one.
20 MR. GUILD: Understood, Judge.
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, fine.
22 It appears as though we've gotten through all the 23 prelimina ry matters, and we'll now get on to the panel,
- s
, 24 which is Mr. Kostal, Mr. Kur tz and Mr. Treece.
Sonntaa Reportino Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
d 12872 X) '-
/-
1 Mr. Kurtz has already been sworn.
-2 Will the other two gentlemen please stand, raise 3 your right' hand, f
4 (The witnesses were thereupon duly ,
5 sworn . )
6 J UDG E G ROSSMAN : Please be seated.
7 Mr. Gallo.
8 BOBBY G. TREECE 4
9 KENNETH THOMAS KOSTAL i 10 RANDALL L. KURTY l 11 called as witnesses by the Applicant herein, having been 12 first duly sworn, were examined and testified as follows: l 13 DIRECT EXAMINATION 14 BY MR. GALLO:
[' 15 0 Mr. Treece, would you state your full name and address, l 16 . business address, for the record?
i
, 17 A (WITNESS TREECE) My name is Bobby G. Treece and my
!- 18 business address is 55 East Monroe, Chicago, Illinois.
19 Q Did you have occasion to prepare testimony for this 20 proceeding?
-21 A (WITNESS TREECE) I did.
22 Q I'm looking at a document entitled, " Direct Testimony of 23 Bobby G. Treece," consisting of eight pages and one I
C\
t /- 24 attachment, and ask if that's the direct testimony that U
Sonntaq Reporting Se rvi ce, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
, (312) 232-0262
~
i 12873 7~m
-.i 1 you prepared for this proceeding.
2 A (WITNESS TREECE) That it is, yes, sir.
3 0 -Is it accurate and complete to the best of your 4 knowledge and belief ?
5 A (WITNESS TREECE) Yes, sir.
6 Q Mr. Kostal, would you state your full name and business 7 address for the record.
8 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Kenneth Thomas Kostal, 55 East Monroe, 9- ' Chi ca go, Illinois.
10 Q Did you have occasion to prepare testimony for this h 11
[V 12 A proceeding.
(WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes,-I did.
13 0 I'm looking at a document entitled, " Testimony of i
14 Kenneth T. Kostal,"' consisting of six pages, and ask if l 15 that's the testimony that you prepared for this i 16 proceeding.
l l 17' A (WITNESS KOSTAL) It is.
l l 18 Q Are there any corrections or additions?
l t 19 A Yes, there is a correction on Page 5, Answer 8. Please L
20 strike the words, "as indicated in my previous answer. "
r 21 On Line 3 of that same answer, add the words - add the
-22 letter "S" af ter " specification" and delete the "S" 23 after "provides".
- 24 0 So how would the first sentence read in Answer 8 at this i
I Sonntaa Reporting Se rvice, Ltd. '- ;
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 - '
L -
i (312) 232-0262
12874
[}
(_ /
1 point.
2 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) It would read, "AWS D1.1-1975 is not 3 named as such in Specification L-2790. Instead, our 4 specifications provide that where the code is invoked,"
5 et cetera.
6 0 Are there any other corrections or additions?
7 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) No.
8 Q Is your testimony as corrected accurate and complete to 9 the best of your knowledge and belief ?
10 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes,-it is.
11 MR. . GUILD: Mr. _Gallo, excuse me.
(
r- 12 What was .the second change, of the plural to the 13 singular or the singular to the plural?
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: In the third line, 15 specifications was made plural and the S was stricken
~
16 frcm provides; is that correct?
p 17 MR. G ALLO : That's correct, your Honor.
18 MR. GUILD: Okay.
19 BY MR. G ALLO :
20 Q Mr. Kur tz , did you have occasion to prepare testimony:
21 with ~ respect to this proceeding?
22 A ' (WITNESS KURTE) Yes, I did.
23 Q I'm looking at a document entitled, " Rebuttal Testimony 24 of Randall L. Kur tz on Rorem Subcontention 2.C,"
Sonntaa Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
- - Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12875
' f% l 1 consisting of 11 pages, and ask iff this was the -
2 testimony you prepared for this proceeding.
3 A (WITNESS KURTZ) Yes, it is.
4 Q Are there any corrections or additions?
5 A (WITNESS . KUR T2) Yes, there are three corrections.
6 On Page 6, Answer 8, the very last word should be 7 " reviewed" rather than " received".
8 On Page 7, Answer 9, on the third line of the 9 answer, if you would add parenthetically, after the word 10 " interpretation," (D1-84-015) 11 Q- What is the significance of that change?
~
-12 A (WITNESS KURTZ) Well, what this change does is give the 13 interpretation number that has been assigned by the i
14 American Welding Society to the referenced formal 15 interpre ta tion.
16 Q Are there any other corrections?
17 A Just one more.
i 18 On Page 8, Answer 11, in the lith line, the line 19 that reads, " perform this welding to the Dl.1 coder even
'20 though later," the word " coder" should be " code".
21 Q Are there any other additions or corrections to your
-22 testimony ?
23 A (WITNESS KUR T2) No.
24 Q Is it accurate and complete as corrected to the best of Sonntac Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
f 12876
. ,,m
( )
\g-
'l your knowledge and belief ?
-2 A (WITNESS KURTE) Yes, sir.
3 Q Mr. Treece, I have here what has been previously marked 4 for identification as Applicant's Exhibit 122, . and it 5 consists of five separate segments identified by volume 6 number, Volume 1 through volume 5, and they consist of 7 excerpts -- or these volumes, I should say, consist of 8 excerpts f rom the contracts or purchase orders between 9 E. C. Ernst and Commonwealth Edison and L. K..Comstock 10 and Commonwealth Edison, and included in the excerpts
, q 11 are relevant portions of the specifications that pertain 12 to welding insof ar as L. K. Comstock and E. C. Ernst are 13 con cerned.
14 I have represented to the Licensing Board and the
.15' -
parties that I have made a determination with respect to
, 16 the relevancy of the excerpts for the issue that you all -
17 are testifying to, and that I represented that these 18 were the relevant excerpts with respect to the purchase 19 order and the specification documents and the other l '20 documents referred to.
21 Can you tell me whether or not you had compiled 22 these documents in the first instance?
I 23 A (WITNESS TREECE) Yes, I did.
l l
( 24 Q And in what form were they originally?
l i
l Sonntaa Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12877 O
1 'A (WITNESS TREECE) W ell, the original form were complete.
2 volumes of 'all the attachments to the specification --
3 s pe cifica tion, all the attachments, and the f orm ' in 4 which I submitted them, I simply took out those sheets and those- supplements that- I felt' were pertinent to the
~
5 6 subj ect of welding.
7 Q And are these excerpts an accurate and complete 8 representation -- or accurate and complete to the best 9 of your knowledge and belief ?
10 A (WITNESS TREECE) Yes, sir.
b). 11 MR. G ALLO: Your Honor, at this point I'd V 12 like to offer into evidence the testimony of Mr. Treece, t
13 Mr. Kostal, Mr. Kurtz, as well as Applicant's Exhibit 14 122.
15 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Any obj ection? '
j 16 MR. GUILD: I have some voir dire.
17 J UDG E G ROSSMAN : Fine.
18' Why don't you, Mr. Guild, pro ce ed.
19 VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION
.20 BY MR. GUILD:
21 Q Mr. Treece, I'm afraid I just didn't understand that
[- 22 last question and answer.
~
23 These are excerpts and merely excerpts that you 24 compiled, as you just testified, from what you believe
' Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262
12878
,c\
.i \-
N_/ '
1 are applicable specifications and attachments?
2 A (WITNESS TREECE) Yes, sir.
3 Q So they are not complete documents? Th ey ar e, indeed, 4 excerpts?
5 A (WITNESS TREECE) No, these are excerpts from the 6 complete copy, 7 0 All right, sir.
8 Mr. Ku r tz , if you would turn in your testimony to i 9 Page 5. .
10 A (WITNESS KURTZ) Yes.
m 11 Q Did you rely, for your answer to Question No. 4, on the
}
- i. 12 testimony of Mr. Kostal?
13 A (WITNESS KURTZ) Yes. As I state in the initial 14 statement, the complete explanation for why AWS D1.1-75 15 is the applicable code was based on Mr. Kostal's 16 testimo ny.
17 0 All right, sir.
18 Your answer to Question 7, is it based upon a 19 review of Comstock welding procedures?
20 A (WITNESS KURTZ) Yes, sir.
21 Q Similarly, your answer to Question 8?
22 A (WITNESS KURTZ) Yes, sir, that's based on my personal 23 review of those documents.
24 Q Your answer to Question 10, is it based on your review Sonntaa Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
{
12879 fM O .
l 1 and interpretation of the formal AWS Code interpretation i I
2 .that's referenced in the previous answer? l 1
3 A (WITNESS KURTZ) W ell, if I understand the question !
4 now -- excuse me. Could you rephrase the question?
5 Q Sure.
6 Your answer to Question 10, is it based upon your 7 reading of the formal opinion that was referenced in the 8 preceding answer, and that is Answer 9?
9 A (WITNESS KURTZ) W ell, it's based on several dif ferent 10 things.
11 It's based, No. 1, on my reading of that
(
12 interpretation; it's also based upon the additional
,. 13 cross-reference interpretation that was requested by
. 14 Commonwealth Edison and submitted by the AWS; and it's 15 also based on my years of experience of working with the 16 codes.
l 17 MR. GUILD: All right, sir.
18 Mr. Chairman, I would move to strike the following 19 portions of Mr. Kur tz ' testimony:
20 Beginning at Page 5 with the Question and Answer 4, 21 it simply restates the testimony of Mr. Kostal and has t
22 no independent probative value; it's hearsay.
23 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Well, are you going on to the l
i - 24 o thers ?
Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd. '
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12880 e
a f $
V 1 MR. GUILD: I was, yes.
2 JUDG E G ROSSMAN : Yes, please.
3 MR. GUILD: Question and Answer 7 and j 4~ Question and Answer 8, similarly, .are founded upon 5 simply a reading and review of procedures,- which this 6 Board and the record in this case has available to it.
7 The interpretation of those procedures -- the 8 review and interpretation of those procedures is 1
l 9 ultimately a task that the Board and parties have to 10 perform themselves.
11 There is simply no probative value in-having Mr.
J
)
12 Kurtz read those same procedures and tell us what's 13 contained in them. That is the substance of what both 14 of those answers provide.
15 And finally, I believe Question and Answer 10, 16 similarly, is simply this witness' recitation of what, t
17 again, this Board will have to decide for itself, and
- 18 that's what they understand from the plain language of 19 the written formal interpretation upon which it is l 20 founded.
l 21 J UDG E G ROSSMAN : We' re going to overrule l
l 22 tha t, Mr. Guild.
23 I think the basis for his testimony is obvious; and 24 so while I hate to use the phrase for whatevor it's t
Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
t l
f
- 12881
\ms) i i
1 worth, we'll let Mr. Kurtz' opinion stay in there as he 2 expressed those opinions.
3 MR. GUILD: With the understanding, Mr.
4 Chairman, that the excerpts from the specifications and 5 procedures that have been marked as Applicant's Exhibit 6 120 for identification are, in fact, as the witness has 7 now stated, Mr. Treece has now stated, merely excerpts 8 that he selected and are not complete documents, I have 9 no objection to their being received.
10 m
(_ ) 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 l
i 20 21 22 23
[h
( j 24 l
t Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
se
>~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of: )
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY )
~
)
) Docket Nos. 50-456 .,
(Braidwood Station,
) 50-457
)
Units 1 and 2) )
DIRECT T'ESTIMONY OF '
BOBBY G. TREECE Ql. Please state your name and place of employment.
Al. My name is Bobby G. Treece. I am employed by Sargent
& Lundy, 55 East Monroe Street, Chicago, Illinois.
My position is Associate and Senior Electrical Project Engineer for Byron and Braidwood Stations.
Q2. Please describe your educational background.
A2. I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of Arkansas in 1948.
T am licensed as a prefcasional engineet in the states of Arkansas, Florida and Illinois.
Q3. Please describe your employment experience.
A3. I went to work for Ebasco Services in 1948 as a Cadet Engineer. In 1951, I joined Sargent & Lundy as an Electrical Engineer. In 1963, I became an 1
1
. 1
, ,1 !
l 7 Electrical Project Engineer and was promoted to l
(
Senior Electrical Project Engineer in 1968, the position which I hold today. During this period, I have been responsible for the engineering and
' design of the electrical aspects of numerous power plants, both fossil and nuclear. In par-ticular, I have supervisory responsibility for the electrical engineering and design of Braidwood Station.
Q4. Please describe your duties as Senior Electrical Project Engineer for Braidwood.
A4. My duties include the division of work among
() Sargent and Lundy's Electrical Project Engineers and Electrical Engineers assigned to the Braidwood project team. I supervise and review the work per-
__ formed by these engineers and provide the interface between the Electrical Department of Sargent & Lundy and personnel at Commonwealth Edison with respect to Braidwood Station.
Q5. What is the purpose of your testimony?
A5. The purpose of my testimony is to identify the relevant purchase orders and specifications that bear on the question of which welding codes applied under the 3 contracts between Commonwealth Edison and E. C.
() Ernst and between Edison and L.K. Comstock.
w -
- , , - - - - - - ,-~ vr-,
u.;
- 06. Did you have any involvement in the activities that
./N
\~ led to the formation of a contract for the performance of the electrical installation work at Braidwood Station?
A6. Yes, I was responsible for the compilation and approval of the electrical installation specifica-tion that was incorporated into Commonwealth Edison's request for bids for the electrical in-stallation work at Braidwood. This specification served as a basis for the preparation of bids.
Q7. Why did Sargent & Lundy prepare this installation specification?
A7. As the Architect-Engineer for the design of Common-
{} wealth Edison Company's nuclear plants, Sargent &
Lundy prepares for Edison the specifications for nearly all of the equipment and installation work for these plants. In this instance, I supervised the preparation of a single electrical installation specification that was applicable to both Byron and Braldwood. This specification, which was dated July 7, 1975 and issued for bidding purposes, was given the dual designation F-2790 for Byron and L-2790 for Braidwood. Thus in the case of Braidwood, the document is referred to as L-2790.
Q8. Was the July 7, 1975 version of L-2790 included in
() the original contract for the electrical work at Braidwood?
- - . - -- - . , - -- - -e. - ---,--,-,,m-a .-_,7 - -- m.,,,e- , ,- - - - - - , - , -m
_s .
A8. Yes, Commonwealth Edison issued Purchase Order No. 197132, dated May 3, 1976, to E.C. Ernst, Inc. for the performance of the electrical installation work at Braidwood. L-2790, dated July 7, 1975, was included as a part of that order.
I understand that pertinent excerpts of the Purchase Order and Specification, which I verified as accurate and complete, have been provided to the Board and the parties.
- 09. Was the July 7, 1975 version of L-2790 subsequently revised?
A9. Yes, a revised version of L-2790 was prepared under
/~3 my supervision. This revision incorporated the V
provisions of the bid specification, dated July 7, 1975, and the Ernst proposal which was included as a part of the Purchase Order at the time of its issuance, May 3, 1976. This " conformed" specification, dated November 12, 1976, was added by Change Order to tne Purchase Order on December 27, 1976.
Q10. How does Specification L-2790 govern the electrical contractor's installation work?
O d
, - , - - , % -- -w. - , . _ _ ,e g . e- -.-..m. m iev--
s A10. The specification describes the scope of the u
electrical contractor's work and prescribes technical requirements for the performance of this work. The technical requirements that are
~
uhique to the project are included in the body df the specification. Technical requirements that are more general in nature are covered in Sirgent & Lundy and Commonwealth Edison Standards En~cluded as supplements to the specification.
Some of these technical requirements specify
~
'4- ddmpliance with industry codes or standards.
ths technical requirements for welding in the S' argent & Lundy standards included in Specification
() L-2790 were defined and furnished by the Sargent &
Lundy Structural Department. In addition, the
~
S'pecification L-2790 was issued for comments to
. _ _ the structural project engineer, K.T. Kostal, for his review to assure that all technical provisions associated with welding were correctly incorporated into the Specification.
Oll. Did Sargent & Lundy modify the welding requirements imposed on Ernst from time to time?
, - , . , - ,-,e--w- - - -- -e. , ,- ,.,-3 y - ~ , - - , , - - .-,.----,3- -
, . , , , e-.. - . ,y-w e n- y- w- me,e-,- - -- - - - - -w -
s
,. All. Yes. Engineering Change Notices (ECNs) were f!
'/ issued to Ernst to modify the welding requirements of the " conformed" Specification L-2790 dated November 12, 1976. ECN-473 (1/19/78) revised STD-EB-702.. ECN-540 (3/13/78) added paragraph 401.18. Both of these changes modified welding requirements.
ECN-473 (1/19/78) also deleted Standard Form 1701 (Rev E). Revision G of this Standard Form was later reintroduced in L-2790 by ECN 858, dated October 11, 1978.
(} 012. Was Specification L-2790 amended to reflect these modifications to. technical requirements?
, A12. _
Yes. Amendments 1 and 2 to the Specification incorporated these changes.
ul3. How long did trnst perform work under Purchase Order
- 197132?
A13. Ernst worked under this purchase order for almost three years and was then replaced by L. K. Comstock and Company on February 5, 1979 under Commonwealth Edison Purchase Order #231360. I understand that
() pertinent excerpts, which I verified as accurate
, ~ , _ !
s,' .'
pf and complete, have been provided to the Board i J and the Parties.
Q14. What version of Specification L-2790 was included in the contract documents between Commonwealth Edison and Comstock?
A14. The " conformed" version of Specification L-2790 and the " comment" issue of Amendment 1 to the specifica-tion were incorporated as a part of Purchase Order No. .
231360. The " comment" issue of Amendment 1 was a preliminary version issued to Commonwealth Edison for comment. Amendment 1 was finalized and issued
() to Comstock by Sargent & Lundy on April 2, 1979.
Standard Form 1701 (Rev G) was added to Comstock's L-2790 specification by Amendment 2 on July 16, 1979.
Ql5. Did the welding requirements imposed on Comstock differ from those imposed on Ernst?
A15. No. Comstock simply adopted the welding require-ments, including the use of D .l. 1-75 , that were previously imposed on Ernst.
016. Why was Form 1701 (Rev E) deleted from the specification?
O s a..
- - . , - - -,e. ..,-%-,.= , --.m.- ---,--w - - , - - - y = .- -,-c..- - m ---- .,, 9---
w--v ye.r%,. -ym y -+--
i A16. -This was done at the direction of Mr. J. T.
O. Westermeier of Commonwealth Edison's engineering department by letter of May 13, 1977, a copy of which is attached. Because the scope of Ernst'.s work was later expanded to include welding on structural steel members, Standard Form 1701 (Rev G) was ddded to L-2790.
017. Is Form 1701-Rev. G still included in Specification L-2790 today?
A17. Yes.
O
=h.
t a
l
!O i
.y wq-r ap--%---am,.am*,-e-,g- 7- .m.. y . .p .-_,9 _ ---ygyn % e y- g9,ym-m.p w.,p--,e,- -- ,<--n+.-,ww, mg.,, 9-9 yr-,yw--w--,
l - * .
n h , v, t.. . lp fo _- -
. jr c / 7-[, Th O .
3 Y$Sh llay 13, 1977 / J-M Subjo:t: Byron sti' tion : ,
NRC Audit January 4-10, 19 7/ -
z) - -3
}&. G. Sorensen:
audit." ~ Vle have reviewed your letter dated % y 2, 1977 regarding the subject
~~
"*he ChiE.spector cited Fem 1701I of the T.lastrical Installation Specifiestion F/L-2790 as the governirer docunent for developing the contractors
' , welding inspostion procedure. Fo= 17312 ia not to be used for thic purpose.
In tho.preparatica of Specification F/L-2990, Fo= 17012 was included for future reference'. To dats, we find no reference being =ade in Specification F/L-2790 to Form 1701'. Thorefore we will renove Forn 1301E from Specification F/L-2790.
tlolding and Weldir.c inspection of work perfomed under Specifiestion Os F/I 2793 in to to in accordance with K4S-D1.1-1775 revision.
By copy of this letter wo are instructing Sarcent and Lund, to info =
all holdera of Specification F/L-279': to remove Fom 17011: frce their copy of the c;ccifjentfon. Also a Contract Change Authori:stien (CCA) shpuld be issued by Station Constructicn renovin;- Fom 1701f.. ,
J.h stermeier Project Engineer f a /
Approved: \ ,i\ ~ v' 1u -
Q JD/1)s
$.V ec: D.L.Jent::
R. Cocaro ,,
R.J. Gausden 2.0. Treeco(S'.L) g ,__ -
p .
\
9
//f c g .
u \ . .
- g \- ,
O
- K-e%
- - . _. , - _ , - - _ . _ . - . , . - - - - _ , , _ . ,,.,,-,--.,-.,-,..-.,,,--~~,ww.-
r,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA I) NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ',y x_/
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD d V g In the Matter of: )
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY )
)
) Docket Nos. 50-456
) 50-457 (Braidwood Station, )
Units 1 and 2) )
TESTIMONY OF KENNETH T. KOSTAL Ql. Please state your full name and place of employment for the record.
Al. Kenneth Thomas Kostal, Sargent & Lundy (S&L) , 55 East Monroe Street, Chicago, Illinois.
Q2. Please describe your educational background and work experience.
A2. I graduated from the University of Illinois in 1965 with a BA in Architectural Engineering and in 1967 with an MS in Architectural Engineering. I have 20 years of experience in the field of civil engineering which includes civil / structural /
architectural engineering and design work for fossil and nuclear power plants. My assignments have included 14 units with a total capacity in excess of 10,000 megawatts. I have also been involved in numerous studies. In addition, as the
f- Structural Project Engineer and Senior Structural i
Project Engineer on Braidwood, I commented on various specifications including Specification L-2790, Electrical Installation Work. Prior to joining S&L in 1967, I was engaged by the University of Illinois as an instructor in structural design and as'an' engineer responsible for structural design and construction drawings for light office buildings. I am a registered professional engineer in 31 states and I also have a separate structural engineering license in the State of Illinois and am licensed in Alberta, Canada. Presently I am a member of the following organizations:
() American Concrete Institute American Institute of Steel Construction American Nuclear Society American Society of Civil Engineers Structural Engineers Association of Illinois Western Society of Engineers Q3. What are your responsibilities for the design of the Braidwood Project?
A3. As Project Director for the Braldwood Project, I am responsible for implementation and technical integrity of S&L's design efforts. I regularly report to the client regarding S&L's performance on the Braidwood Project and on the status of engineering. I work with Commonwealth Edison (CECO) and the Project Team to establish significant design parameters and direct appropriate application
l of S&L engineering. Prior to July 1, 1986, I was L also the Assistant Manager of the Structural Department. In that position which I held from July 1979,_I assisted the manager in coordinating structural, architectural and. civil engineering design for S&L. I assisted the manager in all matters of supervision, administration, personnel and technical policies.
Q4. Did you play a role in the development of Sargent
& Lundy Specification L-2790?
A4. Yes. In 1975, I was assigned to the Braidwood project as a Structural Project Engineer. In that capacity, I was responsible for the identification and specification of technical requirements for structural welding contained in the various Sargent
& Lundy specifications used at-Braidwood, including Specification L-2790. I provided the welding requirements to Mr. Treece, and thereafter reviewed
. and provided comments on the document as prepared by Mr. Treece.
j-Q5. What standards governing welding requirements are included in Specification L-27907 A5. Three Sargent & Lundy standards were included in Specification L-2790, which relate to welding.
() They are as follows: STD-EB-702, entitled " Cable Pan System Field Installation".
7-s STD-EB-ll5.0, entitled " Seismic Category I Electri-(,
cal Equipment Hangers for Fabrication and Erection".
Standard Form 1701 .(Rev E), entitled " Standard Specification for Welding in Building Construction".
These standards prescribe welding requirements by invoking industry codes and standards.
Q6. What industry welding code is invoked in the S&L standards included in Specification L-2790?
A6. The American Welding Society code for structural applications. In addition, the Specification allowed the electrical contractor's procedures to
() be qualified under Section IX of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel code. As Mr. Kurtz explains, the Ernst welding procedures and welding procedure qualifications were based on the AWS Code rather than the ASME code.
Q7. What edition of the AWS Code governed the technical requirements for welding under the contract between Commonwealth Edison and E. C. Ernst?
A7. AWS Dl.1-1975.
. \.-
4
- 08. =What is the basis for that conclusion?
A8. fe indic Lua zu my puevious aus cr f# AWS Dl.1-75 is not named as such in Specification L-2790. Instead, ourspecificationprovidefthatwherethecodeis 5 invoked in the specification, the latest is' sue of the code as of the date of the contract is to be applied to the work performed under the contract.
In Specification L-2790, this provision is contained in Section 107.7:
All references to American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard Specifications, and to other similar standard publications, are
() to the latest issues of each as of the date of this Contract.
As Mr. Treece explains, the date of centract between E. C. Ernst and CECO was May 3, 1976. As of May 3, 1976, the 1975 edition was the latest
- - - publication Of AWS D1.1.
- 09. Mr. Treece, in Answer 11 of his testimony, identi-fies several changes to the welding requirements imposed on E. C. Ernst. Was there any change to the governing welding code, Dl.1-1975?
A9. No.
i
- . . . _ _ _ _ . _ . - _ . . - ~ . - . . , . _ , , _ . _ . , . _ , , _ . . , _ , . . , , , _ _.. . _ _ , . . , , _ _ . . _ . _ , _ _ . _ _ , _ . _ , . .
I*~ ..
- - What-code governed the welding requirements under Q10.
1.
the contract between Commonwealth Edison and L. K.
! Comstock?
A10. Again, the AWS'Dl.1-1975 Code.
i.
Qll. What is the basis for that conclusion?
All. It was'not our intention to establish a new set of 1
- technical requirements for L. K. Comstock,. including
!, the appl'icable welding code-for the electrical work I
at Braidwood. As explained by Mr. Treece, the
- ~
Purchase Order between Commonwealth Edison and Comstock incorporated the version of L-2790 that
! had been issued initially to E. C. Ernst which, as I have explained,-specifies AWS Dl.1-1-1975 as
{
i tne welding code.
4 O
-m--rm w
f
., 3y /' r.b y fq d' Q
c':^
^~) \-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of: ) ,
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY )
)
) Docket Nos. 50-456
) 50-457 (Braidwood Station, )
Units 1 and 2) )
Rebuttal Testimony of Randall L. Kurtz on Rorem Subcontention 2.C Introduction
()- Ol. State your full name, employer and your present position.
Al. My name is Randall L. Kurtz.
I am employed with Sargent & Lundy Engineers as the Assistant Head of the Quality Control Division. ~My business address is 55 E. Monroe, Chicago, Illinois 60603.
Q2. Please describe your professional and educational qualifications.
A2. I received a Bachelor of Science Degree in Metallurgical Engineering from Purdue University in 1976. From January 1974 to April 1976 I was employed by Bechtel, Inc., as a vendor surveillance inspector.
O
5 4 In May 1976, I was employed by Sargent & Lundy Engineers
(~}
Nss as a Quality Control Engineer. My responsibilities in-cluded reviewing the nondestructive testing procedures submitted in response to S&L specifications by vendors and contractors for the Byron and Braidwood projects. I was certified by examination in accordance with S&L pro-cedures as a Level.III Inspector in visual examination, source surveillance inspection, ultrasonic testing, magnetic particle testing, radiographic testing'and liquid penetrant testing.
i 4
In 1977 I was promoted to the position of Quality Control Coordinator. In that position I assisted Senior coordinators in the administration of the S&L quality control activities j on various nuclear projects. This led to my assignment as Lead Project QC Coordinator for two nuclear plants, including Marble Hill, whose design replicates that of the Braidwood plant.
In 1981 I was promoted to Senior Quality Control Coordinator, and I continued to work almost full-time
! on the Marble Hill project until 1983.
As the Senior Quality Control Coordinator for Marble
, Hill, I was heavily involved in implementation and interpretation of code requirements, including ASME
t ..
Section III and AWS Dl.l. For example, on the Marble
{v-}
Hill project S&L had responsibility for issuing formal code interpretations. I was a principal author of several of those formal interpretations, and was in-volved in the preparation or review of all of them. I was also certified as a Certified Welding Inspector by the American Welding Society. In addition, I was certi-fied by S&L as a lead auditor in accordance with the requirements of ANSI N45.2.23.
In August 1983 I became the Supervisor of the Project Section in the Quality Control Division. In that position I was responsible for assuring that the Quality h Control Division Project Section activities were performed in accordance with client project requirements, S&L pro-cedures and accepted QA/QC standards. The Senior Quality Control Coordinator with responsibilities for Byron and Braidwood reported to me.
Currently 1 am Assistant Head of the Quality Control Division. I manage QCD's activities implementing the commitments of the S&L Quality Assurance Program, management directives and client project requirements.
Additional responsibilities include aa assignment on S&L's Structural Weld Committee, the group that formu-lates S&L policy on welding and welding-related issues.
I am a principal author of a program for a code inter-pretation system, dealing principally with ASME Section III and AWS Dl.l. This program provides a computer method for cross-referncing all relevant code interpretations.
I am a member of Edison Electric Institute's Piping, Metallurgy, Welding and Corrosion Task Force. This group reviews common industry problems in an attempt to develop generic resolutions. I have presented technical papers on inspection and nondestructive examination to the Energy Division of the American Society for Quality control and the American Power Conference.
I have given training courses in visual weld inspection, ws.
l weld mapping and principles of nondestructive examination and other subjects to various groups including utility and contractor inspectors.
- 03. What is the purpose of your testimony?
A3. My testimony will explain which edition of the AWS Code applies to welding activities within L.K. Comstock's scope of work at Braidwood Station. In addition, I will respond to a specific technical issue raised by Mr.
Puckett during the hearings in this proceeding.
kbh- Applicable Welding Code Q4. What welding requirements were specified in the contract for the performance of the electrical work at Braidwood Station?
A4. As explained-in_the testimony of Mr. Kenneth Kostal, the initial contract between Commonwealth Edison and E.C.
Ernst, Inc., which incorporated Sargent & Lundy Specifica-tion L-2790, required that welding be performed in accordance t
with AWS Dl.1-1975. The specification also permitted Ernst the option of qualifying its procedures under Section IX of the ASME Code. Mr. Kostal also explains that the contract between Commonwealth Edison and L.K. Comstock, which also incorporated Sargent & Lundy Specification L-2790, similarly
, required that welding be performed in accordance with i
AWS Dl.1-1975, except that at Comstock's option, welders could be qualified under ASME Section IX.
_.l
)
QS. Did Ernst qualify its procedures under Section IX of the ASME Code?
AS. No. Based on my review of the Ernst welding procedures, which were reviewed by Sargent & Lundy, all welding procedures and welding procedure qualification beginning t
with the date of the first procedure submitted, were
- based on AWS Dl.1-1975. This reflects the common under-standing of all parties that AWS Dl.1-1975 was the ap-plicable welding code under the terms of the contract.
Ll
Q6. Did Comstock qualify any of its welders under Section IX hhh. of the ASME Code?
A6. No. Based on my review of the Comstock procedure for welder qualification, Comstock used AWS Dl.1-1975 as the basis for welder qualification.
- 07. What codes and standards did Comstock apply to its welding activities at Braidwood?
[A7. Based on my review of the Comstock welding procedures, which were reviewed by Sargent & Lundy, all welding procedures and welding procedure qualification, be-ginning with the date of the first procedure submitted, were based on AWS D1.1-1975. Again, this reflects the understanding of all parties that AWS Dl.1-1975 was the
()
c
's) applicable welding code under the terms of the contract.
- 08. Mr. Treece's testimony seems to indicate that there is some question about the scope and continuity of Form 1701 under Specification L-2790. Does this mean that the welding performed by Ernst and Comstock at Braidwood was not, for some period, governed by AWS Dl.1-19757
! A8. No. The welding performed by Ernst and Comstock was con-tinuously governed by AWS Dl.1-1975. This is evidenced by the reference to AWS Dl.1-1975 in every issue of every welding procedure submitted by Ernst and Comstock, which I have ro"ei:ca.
wiewel.
k 09. Is the continued use of the 1975 edition of AWS Dl.1 by Comstock today permitted by the AWS Code and the cognizant Code committee?
A9. Yes, since the 1975 edition of AWS Dl.1 is the code specified in the Comstock contract documents. The American
/ (go.v es j o/
e Welding Society has issued a Formal Interpretation / stating that the applicable edition of the code is the one specified in the contract documents. (See Board Exhibit 5. ) Although the interpretation references only Dl.1-1980 and Dl.1-1984, it is clear that the interpretation has general applicability and is not restricted to these examples.
T 010. Doesn't the formal interpretation indicate a preference 1 in behalf of the Committee for use of the current edition of AWS Dl.l?
~
A10. No. The Committee recommends that the engineer allow
~
use of the current edition of the code only in the special case where this is requested by the organization performing the welding under the code. The Committee's endorsement of allowing this flexibility to the contractor does not reflect their preference for any particular edition of the code.
Qll. Since 1979, AWS Dl.1 has incorporated by reference the provisions of AWS Dl.3 governing the welding of base metals less than 1/8" thick. Shouldn't these code requirements apply to Comstock's welding of these base metals?
4
( All. No. To further confirm that code interpretation No.
~
j Dl-84-015 applies to the welding work performed by L.K. Comstock at the Braidwood site, Commonwealth Edison Company directed an inquiry to Dr. Moss Davis of the American Welding Society by letter of October 17, 1984. (See Board Exhibit 3.) The letter posed the following question: "Due to a contract date in 1975 prior to the publication of Dl.3 code, welding of material less than 1/8" is accomplished meeting the 4 requirements of the Dl.1 code. Is it permissible to perform this welding to the Dl.1 code l even though later editions state that it is not intended for materials less than 1/8"?" In the written response, dated November 19,
- 1984, AWS rephrased the question in the following manner:
"AWS Dl.1-75 has no limitations on the thickness of material to be welded. Is it permissible to perform welding to AWS Dl.1-75 on materials less than 1/8"?"
The letter replied as follows: "Yes. The code specified in the contract document applies unless modified by the engineer. (See Interpretation No. Dl-84-015.)" (See Board Exhibit 4.) Thus it is clear that the use of AWS Dl.1-1975 for welding activities of the electrical contractor is consistent with industry practice and the appropriate codes.
3
L,; _9_
v Q12. Has the contractor in this case requested permission to use the AWS Dl.3 Code?
A12. No. Comstock has not requested such permission. In fact, Amendment 42 to Specification L-2790 provides permission to the contractor to use AWS Dl.3. This amendment states in part that, "at the option of the contractor where base metals thinner than 1/8" are to be welded, the requirements of AWS Dl.3 may be applied in lieu of AWS Dl.1" LKC has not exercised this option.
Exercise of the option would require a rereview of all procedures and a revision of most procedures would be required. This extensive task would not enhance the quality of the work.
rdy Welder Qualification 013. At Tr. 6141 Mr. Puckett asserts that the thickness qualification range stated in Table 5.26.1 of AWS Dl.1 for the specific case of a 6 inch Schedule 80 test pipe applies to groove welds on plate. Do you agree?
A13. No. Table 5.26.1 of AWS Dl.1 does provide a minimum thickness of material which a welder is qualified to weld when his qualification test is parformed on 6 inch Schedule 80 pipe. However, this lower limitation is intended to apply only to pipe, not to plate.
Table 5.26.1 provides range of thicknesses which a welder is qualified to weld based on whether his b .
g4 ,; qualification test was performed on~ plate or pipe.
- a. ~
Mr. Puckett correctly states that a pipe test is more difficult to perform than a plate test.- This is re-
.flected in the Code by the fact that a welder who qualifies on pipe is'also qualified to weld plate, while a welder who qualifies on plate is not qualified to weld pipe. A welder who qualifies on plate has no minimum l
thickness limitation imposed on his qualification,
.regardless of the thickness of the test plate. For a welder who qualifies on pipe, however, Table 5.26.1 specifies.a minimum thickness of pipe which the welder is i
qualified to weld. Thus it would be inconsistent with L
the requirements of the Code to extend the minimum thick-r "J ness limitation specified for pipe to the plate qualification.
This would impose a more restrictive qualification range for plate applications when a welder qualified using the ,
more difficult pipe test than when he used the less difficult plate test. The values given in Table 5.26.1 for minimum thickness qualified necessarily relate to pipe applications only and in fact correlate to the thickness of the thinnest commercially available pipe.
Q14. Mr. Puckett asserted, at Tr. 6142-6143, that the Ernst welder qualifications were performed using a 6 inch schedule 80 pipe with backing strip. Do you agree?
N f9
e A14. No. I have reviewed all revisions to the E.C. Ernst welder qualification procedure (Procedure 9.2) and all revisions call for welder qualification to be performed on 6 inch schedule 80 pipe without backing strip in the 6G position.
w
.n
12882
.J(
1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
2 Any obj ection, Mr. Berry?
3 MR. BERRY: No objection -from the Staf f, Mr.
I 4 Chairman.
,- 5 MR. GALLO: Mr. Guild's reference .to- Exhibit 6 120 is in error. It's 122.
L 7 MR. GUILD: I'm sorry. I guess I was looking 8 at them collectively. I see. I'm sorry.
9 I meant the excerpting; and I guess the excerpts 10 only apply to 1227 11 MR. GALLO: Yes.
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, fine.
13 Mr. Berry, you have' no obj ection to that, so that's t
. 14 a dmitted.
{ 15 - MR. BERRY: That's correct.
16 (The document was thereupon received into f 17 evidence as Applicant's Exhibit No.122.)
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Were there other documents 19 that were offered that we have not admitted?
i l 20 MR. G ALLO: The only other documents that are
~21 on the table are Applicant's Exhibits 121 and 122.
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Which are not really L 23 relevant and unnecessarily burden the --
l p)
( 24 JUDGE COLE: You are talking about 120 and L
l Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 4
12883
-A (v.I
'l 121?
2- MR. GALLO: Yes. I made a mistake.
3 Which is which?
4 Yes. Applicant's Exhibit 120 is the Sargent &
5 Lundy Specification L-2790 through Amendment 42 --
6 J UDG E G ROSSMAN : Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't 7 realize what they were.
8 MR. GALLO: -- and Applicant's Exhibit 121 is 9 L-2790 through Amendment 4 8.
10 And it' occurs to me that these were furnished -- at 11 least Applicant's Exhibit 121 was furnished at the 12 request of the Board.
13 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Yes; and I think we do want 14 those documents in for a complete record here.
15 So why don' t -- well, as I see it, those documents
- 16 have already been -- oh, no.
17 MR. G ALLO: They've only been identified by 18 exhibit number.
19 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Okay. We'll admit 20 Applicant's Exhibits 120,121 and 122 at this time.
21 (The documents were thereupon received in 22 evidence as Applicant's Exhibits 120 and 23 121.)
i 24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Tha t's fine.
l
! Sonntaa Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
- 1 12884 x
{O 1 All three are admitted,122 having been admitted a 2 few minutes earlier, but they are all in the record now.
3 MR. G ALLO: That finishes the direct.
4 The witnesses are available for cross examination, 5 your Honor.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Berry, are we still 7 proceeding with Staff at this point?
8 MR. BERRY: No. I believe it's Mr. Guild's 9 turn.
10 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Okay. Mr. Guild, then you
\ 11 ar e --
12 MR. GUILD: I was going to hand it back to 13 the Board, Judge.
14 J UDG E G ROSSMAN : You don't care to 15 cross-examine?
16 MR. GUILD: I do have some limited 17 examination.
18 I'd be happy to go first, if you choose, but I 19 understood that the witnesses were primarily responding 20 to the Board's questions; and I may have some further 21 examination depending on whether the Board does have 22 such questions.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
g 24 MR. GUILD: It's at the Chairman's pleasure, i
~
Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd. l Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262 l
1 12885 1 though. )
2 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Okay. I have j ust a f ew 3 questions.
4 I think we're going to end early here.
5 BOARD EXAMINATION 6 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
7 Q Mr. Kurtz, again on Page 7 in the answer to 9, Question 1
8 9, you say, "The 1975 edition of AWS Dl.1 is the code 9 specified in the Comstock contract documents."
10 Now, you don' t really mean that the contract
~11 documents specify the 1975 edition, do you? Isn' t that s
12 somewhat imprecise?
13 A (WITNESS KURTZ) Well, my statement is based -- is l 14 based on Mr. Kostal's conclusion that the code 4
15 specified -- the code invoked by the contract is the 16 1975 edition of the AWS Dl.l.
4 17 His argument relies on the language of the 18 specification and can best be explained by him; but it's 19 my statement that it's the 1975 -edition that is
$ 20 applicable per the contract documents.
21 Q Well, what I understand his explanation to be is that 22 there's a reference to the latest --
23 J UDG E COL E: Somebody turn that speaker.
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: No. Tha t's all right.
Sonntaa Reportino Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
~
12886
.f' V
l' BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
2 0 -- the latest edition in effect at the time documents 3 were signed, and for certain of those documents, at 4 least, the latest edition was the 1975 Code; isn't that
, 5. correct?
6 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's correct, yes, sir.
7 0 Yes, okay.
8 But there is no actual reference to a 1975 edition 9 in any of these contract documents; isn't that correct, 10 Mr . Kur tz ?
11 A (WITNESS KURTZ) Yes, in the respect that there is no 12 place that specifically says, "Use the AWS Dl.1-1975 13 edition."
14 Q Okay.
15 Now, who is the expert again on these contract 16 documents? Is that Mr. Treece?
- 17 A (WITNESS TREECE) (Indicating.)
, 18 Q Included in Applicant's Exhibit 122, do we have the l- 19 original contract documents signed by L. K. Comstock 20 when they took over the Ernst position at Braidwood?
i 21 A (WITNESS TREECE) I don' t have a document signed by L.
22 K. Comstock, but Volume 3 are excerpts from that l 23 contract and includes the purchase order to comstock.
24 Q Well, now, is it so that Comstock signed some document r
Sonntaa Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12887
('~'\
x_ )
I when they took over the Ernst job at Braidwood?
2 A (WITNESS TREECE) I'm certain they prepared a proposal 3 that they signed --
4 0 Yes.
5 A (WITNESS TREECE) -- and submitted in response to the 6 specification and Amendment 1.
7 This purchase order was an acceptance of that 8 proposal, and bound that proposal, the specification and 9 Amendment 1, into a contract.
10 (Indica ting. )
I h 11 Q Okay.
12 Do we have their proposal included in Applicant's 13 Exhibit 122; tha t is, Comstock's proposal?
14 A (WITNESS TREECE) I believe it is not included. It is 15 referenced in the purchase order.
16 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Okay.
17 Mr. Gallo, I believe you indicated you have the 18 complete documents here.
19 MR. G ALLO : Tha t's correct, your Honor.
20 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Do you have that original 21 proposal by Comstock included in those documents?
22 MR. GALLO: Yes.
23 A (WITNESS TREECE) I believe it's in there.
24 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Some time in the next few Sonntaq Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
- l 12888
-s/
1 minutes, could we have that particular document?
2 MR. GALLO: We'll endeavor to dig it out.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
4 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
5 Q Now, Mr. Kur tz , you indica te, in answer to Question 10, '
6 that the AWS Committee didn't have any preference for >
7 any particular edition of the code; is that so?
8 A (WITNESS KURTZ) Yes, si r.
9 Q Well, didn' t they exhibit any preference when they 10 revised the code to include AWS Dl.37 I 11 A (WITNESS KURTZ) Oh, no, definitely not.
12 Let me explain --
13 Q Well, then, why did they revise DDl.l?
14 A (WITNESS KURTZ) They r evised -- to put this in a bit of 15 historical context, they issued AWS Dl.3 in 1978.
16 There's been an annual revision to AWS Dl.1 every year 17 except 1978.
18 Then with the 1979 edition of Dl.1, they 19 incorporated by reference Dl.3, and they made some 20 corresponding changes in Dl.1 to take out the 21 requirements that would be pertinent to the thinner 22 materials.
23 So, in other words, what I would be saying -- what 24 I am saying is that the 1975 edition of AWS Dl.1 Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12889 p-
.O t
1 provides the equivalent control for the welding of these
-2 thinner materials as would AWS Dl.1-1979 which includes 3 AWS Dl.3.
4 Q Well, ' perhaps you don' t understand my question - or maybe 5 it's just that I don't understand your answer.
6 But if they were satisfied with the 1975 edition of 7 AWS Dl.1 and had no preference for having other 8 requirements with regard to' material thinner than an 9 eighth of an inch, why did they bother compiling a new 10 DD1. 3 7 Why didn't they just leave the 1975 edition the' T 11 way it was?
[O 12 A (WITNESS KURTS) Well, I would be speculating as to the 13- thought process of the code committee, but it's my 14 informed opinion that the reason they did that was from 15 the demand from other types of construction industries, 16 particularly building construction, non-nuclear l 17 construction.
L 18 They were looking for a code that would deal with 19 the steel decking, that type of application, roofing, 20 siding, which would provide more pertinent requirements 21 to their particular industry.
l 22 If I can again try and draw this. into context, AN S i
l 23 Dl.3 takes a slightly different approach to the special
().24 process of welding. They have -- I guess the cleanest l Sonntaa Reportina Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
f-i 12890 0 ,
I way of explaining it would be to say that they go after 2 process control. They have more . requirements for 3 qualification and they don't have as much in the area of 4 production control in terms of inspection requirements.
5 And then, just to hopefully reinforce the point, 6 I'd like to point out that the AWS response to the 7 Commonwealth Edison letter brings up the point 8 specifically that it would be acceptable in 1984, when 9 the letters were generated, to use the 1975 edition of 10 ANS Dl.1 for the welding of base metals less than 1/8' N
11 inch.
12 Q Now, Mr. Treece, do I understand correctly that it's 13 your interpretation that the code that was in effect at 14 the time the documents were signed is the governing 15 code? Was it yours or was it Mr. Kostal's 16 interpretation?
i 17 I'm not sure.
I 18 A (WITNESS TREECE) Well, let me just testify to what I 19 am knowledgeable on.
20 There is a paragraph in the Specification L-2790 l
l 21 that says the applicable standards are those in l
22 effect -- those that are issued at the time -- at the l
l 23 date of the contract.
24 The original contract with Ernst was issued on May i
l
! Sonntaa ReDortino Service. Ltd.
, G enev a', Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262
l l
12891 l I
p)-
(_- !
i 1 3, 1976, 2 0 Well, now, when Comstock signed a new contract, which 3 was, I believe, in 1980, why didn't that requirement now 4 make the DDl.3 or the 1979 edition of DDl.1 the 5 applicable requirement?
6 A (WITNESS TREECE) Well, as a correction, the first 7 purchase order with Comstock is dated February 5th of 8 '79.
9 Q Okay. 1979.
10 I understand that DDl.3 was in effect at that time;
, 11 isn't that correct?
12 A (WITNESS TREECE) I'll have to defer to Mr. Kostal for 13 that?
14 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) It was in effect September 1, '78.
15 Q Now, why didn't the governing clause, then, r equiring
! 16 that the latest edition be used require that, when 17 Comstock signed the agreement, it be DDl.3 rather than 18 the 1975 edition of DDl.l?
19 A (WITNESS TREECE) W ell, the Comstock purchase order 20 simply transferred the existing specification, with all 21 changes that had been imposed upon Ernst, to Comstock.
I 22 In other words, the first purchase order to 23 Comstock referenced the same specification and Amendment
( 24 1, which wrapped up changes that had already been issued
. Sonntaa Reportinu Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
.; 1z892 4
- 1. to Ernst prior to that date.
2 So, in effect, Comstock simply adopted the 3 technical requirements that had previously been imposed 4' on Ernst.
5 Q Well, I take it now that you are using some 6 interpretation here.
7 Isn' t it possible to interpret the requirement that 8 the latest edition be used as meaning the latest edition 9 at the time the latest contract was signed, the latest 10 contract in this case being the Comstock contract and 11 not the Ernst contract?
12 A (WITNESS TREECE) I would agree that's a possible
- l
, 13 interpretation.
14 In my opinion, that was not the intent.
15 Q In your opinion, that shouldn't be the interpretation, 16 but that's a question of what was intended?
i 17 A (WITNESS TREECE) Yes. I was on the job at that time, 18 and my understanding of what was intended was that
( 19 Comstock simply accept and adopt the technical
- 20. requirements that. had previously been imposed on Ernst 21 and proceed with them.
22 0 Okay.
! 23 Le t me --
N 24 A (WITNESS TREESE) In effect --
' Sonntac Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 *
(312) 232-0262
- . - - -= . . - - . - . _ - . . - . - . . - - ... -- . -- -.
1 f
12893 i F
O ,
-l Q I take it you are 'f amiliar with subsequent amendments to 2 the -specifications governing the welding on site;- isn' t 3 that correct?
4 A (WITNESS ; TREECE) I'm familiar with the amendments.
5 The changes in welding requirements were given to me by_
6 Mr. Kostal.
7 0 I take it you are f amiliar with Amendment 4 8, are you, .;
8- or the amendments that subsequently specified DDl.3 in 9 certain respects with regard to -the specifications at 10 Braidwood ?
h =11 A (WITNESS TREECE) I issued the amendment.
[G 12- I don't have all those numbers in my head.
13 0 Okay. I'm not sure I have the right number, too.
14 I think I'm pretty sure that Amendment 30 made 15 mention of DDl.3.
16 Are you f aniliar with that amendment?
17 A (WITNESS TREECE) I issued the amendment, but --
18 Q To refresh your recollection, in case you have reviewed l
19 the transcript, there was some testimony to the effect 20 tha t tha t r equir emen t -- well, I don't want to review 21 that,7 but why don' t we look at Amendment 30.
.22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Does anyone have that 23 numbe r ?
24 MR. MILLER: It's an Applicant Exhibit.
Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
L Geneva, Illinois 60134 232-0262 (312)
12894 O
2 1 MR. G ALLO: Would it be in either one of 2 these tuo?
3 (Indica ting . )
4 A (WITNESS TREECE) Let me check.
5 A- (WITNESS KOSTAL) I'd be happy to answer all these 6 questions rather than him, since I know the amendments.
7 MR. G ALLO: Apparently Mr. Kostal is able 8 to --
9 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Is this Amendment 30?
10 (Indica ting . )
11 MR. GALLO: No. Those are the two exhibits
(
12 we identified earlier. One is through 42 and one is i 13 through 4 8.
4 14 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Okay.
15 MR. MILLER: Applicant's Exhibit 16 carries 16 us through Amendment 39.
17 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Well, this is a later version. It 18 already takes 30 out of it -- I mean, an earlier 19 -version.
1 20 I have Amendment 30 in my briefcase. I could pull
( 21 it out, but I don't have it with me right here.
22 MR. GALLO: Well, why don' t you go -- may Mr.
23 Kostal go to his briefcase, your Honor, to get Amendment f 24 30?
Sonntaa Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12895 V
1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Sure.
2 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Because I've -- it will save me a 3 little trouble.
4 J UD3 E G ROSSMAN : All right.
2 5 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Well, let me explain what I will talk 6 about -in Amendment 30.
I 7 There are two areas of interest. One is Article 8 401.18, which is the first time Dl.1 -- Dl.3 is added, 9 and I'll explain in a second.
1 i 10 The other reference to D1.3 is in Article 401.19.2.
h)
%J 11 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
. 12 Q I'm sorry. What was the first reference?
13 It was 401.19?
4 14 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) 401.18 --
! 15 0 Yes.
16 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) -- and the other is 401.19.2.
17 Q Okay, fine. Those are the amendments.
18 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Now, what 401.18 discusses is the 19 option of qualifying a welder to either ASME Section 9 20 or AWS Dl.1 or Dl.3.
21 Dl.3 was added as an additional option to qualify a 22 w elde r.
l 23 Previous welders were qualified, since the i
C\
l Q 24 inauguration of the contract on Ernst as well as Sonntac Reportino Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12896
- O l' Comstock, to ASME Section 9 or AWS Dl.l.
2 It just so happens they. used Dl.l' for all 3 qualifica'tions and they never invoked ASME at all, nor
~
4 did they ever invoke Dl.3, for that matter, but it was i
5 an optional item at this point in- time.
6 Q Yes.
7 Now 401.19.2 --
8 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) 401.19.2 is in reference to, when you 9 use Dl.3, you inspect then to Dl.3 requirements.
I 10 'Given that they never invoked Dl.3, 'they never
- 11. invoked this Provision 19.2.
12 0 Well, now, it was my understanding f rom previous 13 testimony that the reason given for 401.19.2 not i 14 requiring the use of AWS Dl.3 related to Section 107, h 15 which is tha' ganeral reference to the latest edition of 16 the code specifications when the contract is signed.
l 17 A (WI'INESS KOSTAL) Okay.
18 0 That is, 107.7.
19 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Maybe I could -just explain this to 20 you in my words, since I'm not f amiliar with all the 21 other proceedings, but I can give you the flavor of why i
I; 22 these provisions were continually added.
23 Initially, this specification by reference included-24 two standards, EB 115 and 702. Tho se ar e th e two l
i Sonntaa Reportina Service Ltd. -
Geneva, Illinois 60134
-(312) 232-0262
12897 p
i )
U 1 electrical standards which address certain types .of 2 electrical work which cross-reference AWS Dl.1 as the 3 standards to use or AWS to use.
4 The subsequent amendments to ' this Specification 5 L-2790 -- 401.18 was added to discuss welder i 6 qualifications, 4 01.19 was added to . discuss inspection 7 requirements and changes to field-inspection 8 requirements which were originally invoked when the 9 contract was signed.
10 All subsequent amendments which carry through to 11 Amendment 48, which is the last amendment. in which VWAC s
12 was added in the provision, which is another welding
. 13 inspection criteria -- all of them dealt with dif ferent 14 provisions for inspection, and it was all -- this entire
'15 section was always related to inspection.
l 16 It was never related to performing the welds. It 1
17 was always related to inspecting the welds that were I 18 conducted based on previous proceedings.
19 Q Okay.
20 I thought we had some testimony that one of the 21 later amendments, 46 or 48, did incorporate some AWS L 22 requirements -- AWS Dl.3 requirements with regard to f
23 w elding.
24 Is that not correct?
l l
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. '
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12898 Vl 1 A (WITNESS KURTZ) Your Honor, in my Question and Answer 2 12, I believe I provide that clarification.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Gallo, do you have the 4 original contract now that we're referring to?
5 MR. G ALLO: What I have here is the original 6 L. K. Comstock-Commonwealth Edison contract, and 4
7 beginning at Page 3 is the Comstock proposal, and it's 8 enclosed in the paper clip.
9 (Indica ting. )
10 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Okay. We'll take a
[' N 11 10-minute recess now, i
12 (WHEREUPON, a recess was had, after which 13 the hearing was resumed as follows:)
14 J UDG E ' G ROSSMAN : We' re back on the record.
15 I have no further questions.
16 BOARD EXAMINATION 17 BY JUDGE COLE:
1
- 18. Q Just one or two questions for clarification, yes.
19 Mr. Treece, on Page 7 of your testimony, in 20 response to Question 16, I guess it's not clear to me 4
21 why Form 1701 was deleted.
22 How did it become involved in this matter? Why 23 was it necessary for it to be addressed here?
( ) 24 A (WITNESS TREECE) I'm not sure I understand the last Sonntaq Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
-_ . - - _ -. - . . - - . - ~ _ . - . - _ -
12899 fi
\j 1 question.
2 The Answer to Question 16 at the top of Page 8?
3 0 Yes.
! 4 But what is it about Form 1701 that required this 5 letter from Mr. Westermeir to Mr. Sorensen?
6 A (WITNESS TREECE) Well, I think the letter from Mr.
7 Westermeir to Mr. Sorensen is in regard to the Byron 8 station; and as explained in Mr. Westermeir's letter, 9 there was some confusion as to what was the applicable 10 specification document governing welding.
[
v) 11 12 Q
A But what relation does that have to Braidwood?
(WITNESS TREECE) Well, there was -- one specification 13- was written for both projects. F-2790 was for Byron, 14 L-2790 was for Braidwood, and we, in effect, issued one 15 identical document to both projects; and we tried, as 16 much as we could, to keep these proj ects alike and keep 17 the specifications alike.
18 And so when the question came up on Byron as being 19 a confusing item, to eliminate the same problem at 20 Braidwood, we made the same change at Braidwood.
21 (Indica ting .)
22 Does that answer your question or --
23 0 W ell, I'm not sure. I hesitate to leave it, since
) 24 there's some confusion in my mind.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
[
12900
_ ,m 1 What was the significant difference between Form 2 1701 Rev E and Rev G7 3 A (WITNESS TREECE) I think Mr. Costal should answer 4 that.
5 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) I think I should answer that.
6 To reflect back on your other question first and 7 expand upon it slightly, we had 1701 as a general 8 standard in the body of Specification -- at that time it 9 was F/L-2790.
10 To avoid -- I think the letter was originally 11 written to avoid confus' ion and to make it very clear 12 that the code to use was, in fact, Dl.1-75.
13- There was probably some general discussion that
, 14 occurred, i
15 Mr. Sorensen at the time was the superintendent at i _16 the sta tion -- at the Byron Station. He had discussions 17 at that time in ' is role with the electrical contractor, 18 and this letter was written in order to clarify those i
19 discussions and to make sure everybody was on the same i
20 common footing when it came to which AWS Code to use.
l 21 Therefore, the D1 -- the 1701E -- excuse me -- our 22 Standard 1701E was asked to be deleted.
l 23 Subsequently, then, of course, it was reinitiated i O 24 in an ECN later on for certain type of structural work, l
l-Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
A 12901
'I which had to do with major structural components outside 2 of main plant for the non-segregations phase bus duct, 3 - which is a non-safety-related item, and that type of 4 work, which is heavy structural welding, would invoke 5 the 1701 standard.
6 The reason for later revision is we had updated 7 that standard from Rev E through to include Rev G.
8 At the time the request came out to do this 9 additional structural steel work, we were already at Rev 10 G.
11 Q All right, sir.
12 Well, I'm looking at this letter, the May 13, 1977,
~!
13 letter from Westermeir to Sorensen, and I get the 14 impression f rom that that 1701E -- Form 1701E would 15 raise some question as to the applicable code; is that
~16 correct?
17 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) No, I don' t think it was that.
t 18 What I believe it was,1701E is basically a l
19 structural welding stendard that exists within Sargent &
20 Lundy. It's for heavy structural welding: you know, 21 wide flange beams, larger heavy plates, rolled sections, 22 things of that nature; whereas the electrical work, in l
23 terms of hold-down welds for equipment, in terms of 24 hangers, is really lighter welding, which are addressed Sonntac Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 - ,
(312) 232-0262
,. _ _ _ _ . . .~
12902 3 <
- l- already in those two EB standards I mentioned, EB 115 2 and 702, and they clearly ref trence to follow AWS Code.
, 3 Q So there would have been some confusion as to which to 4 follow, and that's the reason why it was recommended --
5 or why he, in fact, did delete Form 1701E from 6 applicability ?
7 .A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Could have been, yes, sir.
i 6 Q Then why did you bring' it back as a Rev G?
L p 9 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Eecause in Rev G we were specifically 10 doing, at that point in time, structural welding work, m
) 11 which required -- which then would reference -- or
/
12 require the use of Standard 1701.
13 Q All right, sir. Thank you.
14 Let's see if I have any more questions.
15 Mr. Treece, in Applicant's Exhibit 122, Volume 3, 16 the second page of that -- or, really, the first page 17 past the title page, I'm looking at the first sheet, ,
18 which is for identification, and at some place on that 19 it is called a contract payment authorization document;
, 20 is that correct, sir?
21 A (WITNESS TREECE). Yes, I think the words are contract 22 payment authorization; right.
23 Q All right, sir.
O)
( 24 And I'm looking under the Description Section, i.
Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
i Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12903 fx 1 where it says something to the ef fect, "This work to be 2 performed in accordance with Sargent & Lundy 3 Specification L-2790 dated May 3,1976, and Amendment 1 4 dated May 25, '78, and your proposal dated February 1, 5 '79."
6 Do you see that, sir?
7 A (WITNESS TREECE) Yes.
8 Q What does that mean to you, sir, that statement? Is 9 this part of a contract document that would bind 10 somebody to something?
Lll A (WITNESS TREECE) The page you are looking at I
(
12 referred to as a purchase order, and the purchase order 13 number is the number in the upper right-hand corner, and 14 the date of that- purchase order is February 5th of '79.
15 0 All right, sir.
16 Well, you -indicated that there was an agreement 17 between Commonwealth Edison and Comstock that they would 18 pick up where the previous contractor left off, and the 19 scope of his work would be under the same requirements 20 that the original' contractor signed back in '76.
21 Now, where does it say that in any documents that 22 are before us, sir?
23 A (WITNESS TREECE) It doesn' t say it in so many words; 24 but the documents that are referenced in this purchase Sonntac ReDortino Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12904 A
t V>
1 order are the same documents that were in effect with 2 Ernst.
3 In other words, L-2790, which says is dated May 3, 4 '76, that's actually the date of the purchase order to 5 Ernst, and Amendment 1 dated May 25, '78, is an 6 amendment that picked up Engineering Change Notices that 7 we had issued to Ernst.
8 Q I guess, sir, I'm searching for some document that says, 9 in fact, what you said in words; that the company did 10 agree to pick it up, and their obligations and
[ T 11 responsibilities pertained to whatever the obligations U 12 and responsibilities were when the original contractor 13 signed the document.
14 Where --
15 A (WITNESS TREECE) Okay.
16 Q What demonstration do we have of that, sir ?
17 A (WITNESS TREECE) I don't think it says that in so many 18 words; but what I'm -- my interpretation is that, since 19 they used the same specification that formed a part of 20 the Ernst contract, that the same technical requirements 21 applied to Comstock as applied to Ernst.
22 JUDGE COLE: All right, si r .
23 BOARD EXAMINATION 24 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12905 -l 1
/~3 l
( )
%_/~
l i
1 Q And so there were no specific references, the n, to the ,
2- Ernst contract?
3 A (WITNESS TREECE) Nothing other than the reference to 4 the date of the spec, which is the same spec that was 5 issued to Ernst.
6 Q That is Specification L-2790?
7 A (WITNESS TREECE) Yes, sir.
8 0 Well, isn't Specification L-2790 the one that has the 9 reference to the latest edition of the standards?
10 A (WITNESS TREECE) Yes, si r.
11 Q Well, how, if there's no reference to the Ernst 12 contract, can anyone know that the latest edition of the 13 specifications would refer to the latest edition when 14 Ernst signed the contract?
15 A (WITNESS TREECE) I guess what I was telling you is, in 16 my opinion, that was -- what was intended at the time 17 this purchase order was issued was that Comstock pick up 18 the technical requirements as imposed on Ernst and move 19 forward with them.
20 BOARD EXAMINATION 21 BY JUDG E CALLIHAN:
22 0 Carrying that just a step further, Mr. Treece, please, 23 is it significant, in your opinion, that this page, the t
O)
( 24 second sheet, Page 1, I presume, of Volume 3 of Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12906 L/
1 Applicant's Exhibit 122, the point just under 2 discussion, and I quote, "This work to be done in 3 accordance with Sargent & Lundy Specification L-2790 4 dated May 3, 1976," as-amended by something in 1978 --
5 does that not tie down the -- does that tie down the 6 commitment by Comstock?
7 A (WITNESS TREECE) Well, it would, except there is a --
8 in my opinion, a mistake in _the way that's worded.
9 There is no L-2790 dated May 3,1976. L-2790 w&s 10 originally dated July of '75, and then the conformed
[ h 11 version was dated November 12th of '76.
\ )
12 That purchase order, the one we' re looking at, 13 refers to L-2790 dated May 3, '76, -which is really the 14 date of the purchase order to Ernst.
15 Do you understand what I think is a mistake?
16 Q Let me ask it again, please. I'm sorry.
, 17 The second line --
18 A (WITNESS TREECE) Yes.
l 19 Q -- I just quoted, May 3, 1976, is the date of what?
! 20 A (WITNESS TREECE) The date of the purchase order to E.
-21 C. Ernst.
l 22 Q So this is a little bit of a fuzzy remark here then?
23 A (WITNESS TREECE) Yes.
'( )' 24 0 As I read it, Specification L-2790 dated May 3rd, but i
l Sonntaa Reportina Ser'fice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12907 J
+
l1- . you - say it's -- well, how would you paraphrase that to
- 2 make it speak correctly? ,
, 3 A (WITNESS TREECE) To speak correctly, it should have 4 said, "L-2790 dated November 12th of '76."
5 0 Or might also one say, "In accordance-with Sargent &
l 6 Lundy Specification L-2790 as incorporated in the Ernst 7 contract or purchase order"?
8 A (WITNESS TREECE) " Purchase order dated May 3, '76," -
9 would have been an equally acceptable way to phrase it.
10 Q Either of those would have clarified it?
11 A (WITNESS TREECE) Yes, si r.
'12 J UDG E CALLIH AN : That's all:I have.
13 Thank you.
1 14 BOARD EXAMINATION 15 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
4
! 16 0 Well, now, Mr. Treece, in your opinion, what was the 17' date on which L. K. Comstock had a completed contract i-18 with Sargent & Lundy?
7 19 A (WITNESS TREECE) You mean with Commonwealth Edison?
i 20 Q With Commonwealth Edison; and I thought Sargent & Lundy 21 was also a party to that.
. :2 2 Is that not correct?
- 23 A (WITNESS TREECE) No, we're not a party to the 24 contract.
t-Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
- (312) 232-0262
12908 V
1 Q Okay.
2 When did it have a completed ~ contract with 3 Commonwealth Edison?
4 A (WITNESS TREECE) I would say on February 5th of '79.
5 0 okay.
6 Now, let's understand correctly:
7 At that time, had they entered into a new contract, 8 with reference to the existing AWS Code Dl.1, that would 9 have incorporated DDl.37 Isn't that correct, DDl.3 had 3
10 already been adopted by AWS --
[ h 11 A (WITNESS TREECE) If it was a brand new --
12 0 -- if it was a brand new contract?
13 A (WITNESS TREECE) -- contract.
14 Q I'm not trying to trick you into saying --
15 A (WITNESS TREECE) No. I understand.
16 If it was a brand new contract, it would have put 17 into effect the latest issued version of the standards 18 that were in effect at the time of the contract.
19 Q Right. All I'm trying to find out is which standards 20 were in effect in February of 1979.
21 Those would have included AWS D1.3; is that 22 correct?
23 A (WITNESS TREECE) I will defer to --
(
t, 24 Q Mr. Kostal ?
4 Sonntaa Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12909 f
V 1 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, tha t's correct.
2 But one thing else -- but one thing that would have 3 also occurred is the use of the AWS standards -- we were 4 constantly revising the various standards -- our various 5 Sargent & Lundy standards, and we would have recognized 6 the use of Dl.3 for certain applications as compared to 7 Dl.1, and I think we would have, at that point in time, 8 made that part of the bid spec and, of course, ' clarified 9 it for the contract.
10 But to answer your question directly, if the 11 contract was awarded in 1979, then it would have been
[V) 12 the applicable standards -- the AWS standards that 13 existed up and to the time of the signing of that 14 contract.
15 So if it was some time in mid '79, it would have i 16 invoked, then, the AWS standards, which would have 17 included Dl.3-78 as well as Dl.1-79.
-18 Q W ell, I thought we had it clear until you mentioned 19 mid-1979.
20 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) It makes no difference. I j ust -- if 21 it's 2/79, if there was a standard out in '79, it would 22 have included it.
i 23 The standard may have been issued in '78, which,
()'4 2 for example, the Dl.3 was. It would have invoked the
! Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12910
~1 D1.3.
! 2 Q Okay. - That's fine.
. 3 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) . Tha t's correct, sir. ,
4 J UDG E G ROSSMAN : Okay.
5 Mr. Guild.
6 . CROSS EXAMINATION 7 BY MR. GUILD:
8 Q Mr. Kurtz, let's look at your testimony for ~ a moment, 9 sir.
10 Originally: you were to be presented ~ as a witness in 11 this proceeding, and you prepared prefiled direct.
12 testimony, did you not?
- 13 A _,
(WITNESS KURTZ) Yes, sir, I did.
~
f 14 ^Q And that testimony, which was circulated to the Board
'15 and the parties, consisted of -- the last page -- 40
'16 pages, did it-not, with attachments?
17' A (WITNESS KURTZ) Yes, I don't have it in front of me, 4
- 18 but I'll accept that representation.
19 (Indica ting . )
12 0 Q Subj ect to check; and I'm reading 40 off the last page
~
21 here. ,
l- 22 And that testimony addressed a series of issues 23 involving Mr. Puckett, the former Level III Weld H24 Inspector at L. K. Comstock?
s
- Sonntaa ReDortina Service, Ltd.
! Geneva, Illinois 60134 l-,. (312) ~ 232-0262
. + - ._ ._
12911
' &j
-l
'T 1 A - (WITNESS . KUR TZ) Yes.
- 2. Q And that testimony has been withdrawn? ;
3 A. (WI'INESS KURTZ) Yes.
1
-. 4 Q And in its place, your testimony with ' respect to Mr.
.5 Puckett now consists of a page-and-a-half, 9,10 and 6 part of 11, of what's been prefiled for you as rebuttal 7 testimony ?
8~
A (WITNESS KURTZ) That's right. ,
9- 0 All right, sir.
10 And that is in light of having heard Mr. Puckett h 11' testify in this proceeding? You read the transcript of 12: his testimony, I take it?
, 13 A (WITNESS KURTZ) Yes.
14 There's two reasons for that --
15 Q. Well, I didn' t ask you that question, Mr. Kurtz.
16: A~ (WITNESS KURTZ) Okay.
17 Q But it is in light of having listened to Mr. Puckett's i: 18 testimony ?
19 A (WITNESS KURTZ) Par tial'.y, yes.
20 Q You make some reference to Mr. Puckett's testimony, in 21 . fact, when you address the questions that appear on 22 Pages 9, 10 and 11 of your testimony.
l- 23 There you take issue with Mr. Puckett's 24 interpretation of a provision of the AWS Dl.1 code, that Sonntag Repor ting Service. Ltd.
' Geneva, Illinois 60134~
l - (312) 232-0262
12912 7
(v 1 provision cited in Question 13?
2 A (WITNESS KURTZ) Yes.
3 0 . All right.
4 And you cite to Transcript 6141 of Mr. Packe tt's 5 testimony.
6 I take it you read that referenced part of. his 7 testimony, did you not?
8 A (WITNESS KURTE) Yes.
l 9 Q I take it you've read the portions of his testimony that 10 continue along the same subject on to 6142 and 6143?
[}
v 11 12 A You cite to that testimony at Question 14?
Yes.
(WITNESS KURTZ) 13 Q Now, at Transcript 6143, Mr. Miller, counsel for the 14 company, asks a question, Line 2, "W ell, is the fact of -
15 the backing trip, then, the characteristic of-the test
! 16 that leads to the thickness limitation that I have --
17 that you have just described?"
18 The answer is, "10 dif ferent people will give you 4 19 different interpretations of what the Code will mean. "
20 Question by Mr. Miller, "I'm sure tha t's right. "
21 Now, do you agree with Mr. Puckett and Mr. Miller, 22 apparently, tha t, indeed, on questions of code i 23 interpretation, 10 different people could give you 4
( 24 dif ferent answers?
Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12913 O
1 A (WITNESS KURTZ) If those 10 different people were not 2 . experts -in the code, they could come up with 10 3 different answers, but if you would have a panel of 4 experts, I'm sure that they would come up with the same 5 single answer on code interpretation.
6 Q I see.
7 Experts such as yourself and, if they were experts 8 such as yourself, there would only be one answer?
9 A (WITNESS KURTZ) Yes.
10 .Q And that's the answer you have given in your testimony?
11 A (WITNESS KURTT) Yes.
}
12 Q All right, sir.
13 Now, that is, in fact, in reliance on your opinion 14 as to the proper interpretation of a code provision that i
, 15 is not otherwise explicit?
16 A (WITNESS KURTT) Well, in my opinion, though, the code 17 is consistent, and in that consistency, there is i-18 explicitness.
.19 Q You read explicitness into it, do you not?
20 A (WITNESS KURTZ) W ell, I would say so; but there is 21 consistency in the different requirements of the code 1
22 and the code does wtrk together in this. It's in 23 harmony on the limit of welder qualification.
24 (Indica ting . )
Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12914 p) t
's.)
1 Q All right sir.
2 But, in fact, there is no explicit language one way -
, 3 or the other, is there, on the point that you refer to 4 in your testimony?
i 5 A (WITNESS KURTZ) If -- if I -- let me rephrase the 6 question and see if I understand it.
7 Is there anything in the code that says that the
, 8 limitations given per the 66 Schedule 85 are strictly 9 for pipe qualifications and not for plate applications?
10 Q Yes.
11 A No, there's no such specific language.
12 Q All right, si r.
13 Now, Mr. Puckett states, at Transcript 6142 --
14 w ell, beginning Line 20 -- Line 19, he's asked the 15 following question:
16 "Right.
17 "Now, could you tell me where in 5.17.4 you find a 18 lower limit thickness range for the pipe weld?"
19 Answer, Line 22, "Well, in 5.17.4, it says the 20 welder who makes a complete joint penetration groove 21 weld pipe procedure qualification test without backing 22 strip.
23 "To the best of my knowledge, their 6 inch schedule 24 pipe was run with backing strip."
Sonntac Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
I l 1
12915 l
1
.k
- 1. Now, of course, you understand Mr. Puckett was I
2 referring to Ernst at that time?
3 A .(WITNESS KURTZ) Yes.
4 Q Now, I take it you weren't personally present to observe :
5 all of the Ernst qualification that took place to that 6 procedure -- of that procedure, were you?
7 A (WITNESS KURTZ) No, I wasn't present, nor was Mr.
8 Puckett.
9 Q No.
10 'And you reached a conclusion that was contrary to e 11 Mr. Puckett's belief, and that was that backing strips
\
12 had been used, on .the basis of . simply reviewing the 13 Written Ernst qualification procedures?
14 A (WITNESS KURTE) That's right.
15 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I have no further.
l 16 questions.
17 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Mr. Berry. ,
l 18 MR. BERRY: May I have one minute, Mr.
19 Chairman?
20 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Sure.
21 MR. BERRY: Mr. Chairman, the Staff has no 22 questions of the witnesses.
23 BOARD EXAMINATION 24 BY J UDG E COL E:
Sonntao Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12916 (O
,J 1
1 0 . Just one question, Mr. Kostal.
2 In response to a question. f rom the Board, I 3 believe, in the last series of questions, you indicated 4 that if a contract had been signed in 1979, that the 5 applicable version of AWS Dl.1 would include Dl.3.
6 Why isn't that the case here with respect to 7 Comstock ?
8 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Well, the reason I believe it isn't 9 the case is it was Edison's intent to just roll over the 10 contract that Ernst had and give it to Comstock lock, 11 (v stock and barrel, which included the basic spec that 12 Ernst bid to and the conformed -- the conformed spec
.13 that served as part of the purchase order; and that when 14 the change between Ernst and Comstock occurred, we were 15 already into the job a few years, and rather than 16 disrupt the job and create a whole new set of standards, 17 their intent was just to move everything that was in 18 Ernst's package into Comstock's package, which included 19 all the standards that were in existence as part of the 20 contract for Ernst.
21 Q All right, sir.
22 Is that the understanding and intent of 23 Commonwealth Edison, of Comstock and of Sargent & Lundy, p)
( 24 their engineers?
Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4 12917 o
0 'N-A J
4 4
1 A (WITNESS ~ KOSTAL) Well, I believe it's the - understanding' 2 of Commonwealth Edison, but you would have to ask 3 Commonwealth Edison ' that directly.
4 Sargent & Lun6y has not changed the standards by i 5 which we have done our design since we atarted this 6 proj ect, which is back in 1973. We use the same codes
, 7 in concrete and steel, ASME, -for example, that were a
8 invoked at the time we started our design, and continue J
9 with those same codes today.
, 10 We do not update the codes to the present -because 11 otherwise we'd be in a constant fluctuation and back
-12 calculating everything as the codes constantly keep 4 13- . changing.
1 14 Q Yes.
15 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) You have to have a code of record.
16 Q Would you characterize this as standard practice in the -
17 consulting business?
18 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, it's a standard program.
I 19 The philosophy of our firm -- you will find it is 20 in the body of every specification, a provision such as 21 17 -- 107 7, which is part of Spec L-2790 -- you will 22 find that in all our specifications, that type of 23 language, which, in essence, says, "You use the latest i
g ) 24 codes and standards that exist at the date of your J
Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
4 Geneva, Illinois 60134
' ( 312) 232-0262
'. 12918 '
O V
- 1. purchase order with the contractor."-
2 It's ' included even in the body of 1701E. If you 3 look at the very top of _ that, you will see those same -
4 kind of words.
5 JUDG E COLE: All right, sir. Thank you.
6 I understand your position.
7 BOARD EXAMINATION 8 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
9 Q If I understand correctly, you are with Sargent & Lundy?
10 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
[ 11 Q And you are not purporting to know what went on in the
(
12 minds of the Commonwealth Edioson people or in the minds 13 'of the Comstock people?
14 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) No. I was just giving you my. opinion 15 as to this interpretation, yes.
16 I've been on this project since 1973; originally as 17 the structural proj ect engineer. I've subsequently been I 18 promoted within the firm to where I am a partner of the 19 firm now, and I'm the director of -- project director 20 for the Braidwood Station.
1 21 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild.
22 CROSS EXAMINATION
- 23 (Continued) 24 BY MR. GUILD:
Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l w
12919 O
l' Q Mr. Kostal, that last response to-Judge Cole was not 2 . completely accurate, in that Sargent & Lundy certainly l 3 has changed .its standards when it thought there was a 4 sound basis for changing standards.
- 5. Th ey are not immutable, are they ? -
6 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) The preamble of almost every . standard 7 gives the engineer the option to upgrade a given 8 contract, it gives them the option to upgrade to a later 9 standard if it's felt appropriate.
10 0 Well, for example, you've relaxed the application of the b
D 11 AWS Dl.1 weld acceptance criteria in some respects as f 12 they apply to Comstock?
13 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) We have also strengthened those and i' 14 made them more stringent in other applications.
'15 Q In fact, you have adopted, with a subsequent revision to i ;
~
16 the L-2790 specification, the industry-supported visual
- 17. weld acceptance criteria?
i
- 18 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's for the inspection efforts, not i
19 for the installation effort; that's right.
l 20 Q All right.
l 21 But, indeed, that represents a change in a standard 22 that you believe is soundly based on good engineering i
l 23 j udgm ent?
l l 24 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's correct.
1 Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 i (312) 232-0262
12920 f N.
]
1 Q All right, si r.
2 - And in this case, you authorized the contractor, at 3 the contractor's option, to opt' to use the AWS Dl.3 4 scode?
5 A. (WITNESS KOSTAL) Right.
6 And we also believe that Dl.1 was certainly 7 appropriate and continues to be appropriate for 8 continuation of this work.
9 If he so desired to upgrade and use Dl.3 and to 10 modify his procedures and standards accordingly, we
[G ) 11 would have accepted that.
12 Either one was acceptable as far as we were 13 concerned. That's why we have the option in Section --
14 in the sections that I have discussed earlier.
15 0 All right.
16 And it would be perfectly appropriate for a newly
~17 hired Level III welding Quality Control Inspector, who 18 was asked to review the adequacy of the welding 19 procedures and program at L. K. Comstock, to recommend 20 that the more recent AWS Dl.3 Code be adopted for use on 21 welding thin gauge materials?
22 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) I don' t know if it would necessarily 23 be appropriate.
( )
24 He could ask management what their decision was, Sonntaa Reportina Se rvice_, Ltd.
}
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
- i 1
l 1
12921 l
. l 1 and management could tell him, "We chose to continue 2 with using Dl.11rather than invoking Dl.3."
3 Q Or management could fire him?
4 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) .I have no opinion on that.
5 MR. GUILD: That's all I have.
6 BOARD EXAMINATION 7 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
8 Q Mr. Treece, just to get it clear:
9 When you spoke of intent some time ago in response 10- to some Board questions, you also were speaking as a 11- part of Sargent & Lundy, not --
12 A (WITNESS TREECE) Yes, sir.
l 13 0 -- not with regard to what went on in the minds of-14 Commonwealth Edi. son or Comstock; isn't that correct?
15 A (WITNESS TREECE) I'm only speaking - for Sargent &
16 Lundy.
i
{ 17 But basically what my judgment is is what was the 18 intent on the discussions that took place with Edison at 19 that time, and that's when I said in my opinion it was i
20 their intent to simply transfer the technical 21 requirements previously imposed on Ernst to the Comstock i 22 personnel.
l 23 (Indica ting. )
24 0 Well, now, commonwealth Edison didn't actually get i
Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
t ,
12922 O
Q li involved in the technical requirements -of the dif ferent.
.2 standards, did it, AWS or ASME or any of the others, did t 3' Commonwealth Edison? ,,
2 4 _A (WITNESS - TREECE) Yes. Well, the specifications are E 5 prepared and submitted to Commonwealth Edison for review 6 and comment, and their comments are dispositioned.
- '7 (Indica ting.)
8 .So. the: general answer: to your question is yes, 9 Commonwealth Edison does get involved.
! 10 Q- In approving the f act that you are going to be putting 11 the job under certain standards; isn't that correct?
12 I mean, they approve in general the . f act that you j 13- are going to be governed by ASME or AWS with regard to 14 particular aspects of the job; is that correct?
15 A (WITNESS TREECE) Correct. We- submit the specification l 16 with all the supplements to them for their review and 17 comments.
1 18 Now, to what degree or detail they go into each one l 19 of those standards and requirements I cannot testify, -
c 20 but --
l 21 Q W ell --
i-
. 22 A (WITNESS TREECE) -- they do go through that process and
- .23 c ommen t. -
I
) 24 0 Well, have they ever gone into the specification of I e Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
2 Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262
E p
12923 1 - those details --
2 AL Sir?
-3 Q Have they ever gone into the specification of those 4 details with you as to what's required by ASME or by 5 AWS? 1Have they.gone over those in detail with you?
6- A (WITNESS TREECE) Not' on this specific spec, no, sir.
7 A- (WITNESS KOSTAL) If I may, Judge, it's very common for 8 those standards, which I'd say ;in the civil structural 9 area -- they probably go over the standards in great 10 detail, which provisions we will add and which 11 provisions we will delete.
( 12 For example, sampling of _ sand, how much sampling we 13 should do, what type of sampling we should do, because 14 the standards that exist in some of those are so 15 detailed they are not necessarily appropriate nor
, 16 applicable to our area of the country, because they l
17 cover the whole country.
l 18 So there are- a number of standards where they will
.19 go into great detail in working with us and '
20 understanding our logic as to why we are invoking i
! 21- certain provisions of various code standards, i-j' 22 (Indica ting. )
! 23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Berry.
l
! 24 CROSS EXAMINATION L
! Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 t
(312) 232-0262
/
~,
l 12924' l l
(Y i
?%-l l 1
I 1 BY MR. BERRY:
2 Q Gentlemen, what would entail a change for an applicant 3 to change from a Dl.1 to Dl.3? What would be required 4 to effectuate that change?
5 A (WITNESS KURTZ) W ell, the basics of such a change would 6 inn to, No. 1, review the existing welding program, which 7 would consist of the welding procedures, the welding 8 procedure qualification records, the related procedures, 9 such as welder qualifications, and the resulting 10 documentation, such as the welder qualification test 11 records, and see what would have to be dianged in the
(
12 procedures and what types of additional tests or new 13 tests would have to be performed in order to implement 14 this new code.
15 Q Do you have any idea or estimate as to how long that 16 review and process would take to fully implement that 17 change, if the change was so desired?
18 MR. GUILD : Objection, Mr. Chairman.
19 It's beyond the scope of the witness' testimony.
20 It's really going to entail -- if he's competent to 21 answer the question, which he may be, it's going to 22 certainly entail excursion into far beyond what I see as 23 the scope of this prefiled rebuttal testimony.
24 MR. G ALLO: I think it's within the scope, i
Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12925 O) f.
v 1 the answer to Question 12 of Mr. Kurtz' tes timo ny.
2 MR. BERRY: I believe that's correct, Mr.
3 Chairman.
4 J UDG E G ROSSMAN : Overr uled. We'll allow an L
- 5 answer.
6 A (WITNESS KURTZ) Well, without any review whatsoever, it
- 7. would be easily understood by anybody who -- let me 8 . start over.
9 Anyone with a welding background -- not necessarily 10 a welding expert, but simply somebody with just a 11 regular, normal welding background, would understand
(
12 that the qualifications themselves for both the 13 procedures and the welders would have to be rerun if the 14 basis for the qualification was AWS Dl.3 rather than AWS 15 D1.1.
16 The actual physical act of welding wouldn' t change 17 at all. The actual procedure would still be the same.
18 In other words, when you are making the weld, all l 19 the electrical characteristics for the physical act of 20 depositing the weld metal would be the same regardless 21 of what the code is. Even if it was just a code that we 22 made up right here today, the physical act of welding is 23 going to be the same.
i O
s j 24 What would change is the basis for qualifying the ,
- s-m Sonntaq Reportino Service, Ltd. i
- Geneva, Illinois 60134 !
(312) 232-0262 )
i
12926 4
ym 1- process and the basis for qualifying the producer, th e 2 craft.
3 (Indicating.)
4 BY MR. BERRY:
5 0 Are you aware of any applicant that's -- if it's 4
6 appropriate, that ever changed from the Dl.1 Code to a
'7 later code?
1 8 MR. GUILD: Obj ection; beyond the scope.
- 9 MR. BERRY
- Your Honor --
10 JUDG E GROSSMAN: I think we are going f ar
, [~
'J
) 11 afield here, Mr. Berry.
12 MR. BERRY: I believe I'm inquiring into the 13 industry practice, Mr. Chairman.
14 I believe the question is -- if it is beyond the 15 scope of direct, I would ask leave of the Board, you 16 know, for an answer to the question.
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, I don't even see that 18 it's relevant, because if they had to, they were 19 required to; if they didn't have to, they weren't 20 required to.
21 I mean, it's just circular now. As to how much 22 time it would take them to do it or how hard it would be 23 to do it I don' t think is really relevant.
) 24 But we'll allow the question.
Sonntac Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
L 12927 .,
,0~%; !
l l- MR. BERRY: I'd ask ' that the question that l 2 was obj ected to, were there any witnesses who were aware 3 of --
4 J UDG E G ROSSMAN : Yes, with the point being 5 that it would be difficult to do it.
6 But, okay, you can ask the question, Mr. Berry.
7 A (WITNESS KUR T2) It might be a surprising answer, but 8 it's 'actually- been done and it's been done at Braidwood 9- by- the INAC contractor.
10 They were undergoing a corporate program to revise ,
11 all of their welding procedures, and they wanted to, for 12 corporate purposes -- they had jobs at a number of 13 nuclear plants -- they wanted to use the latest welding 14 codes.
15 We had similar language in their. specification as 16 we put into Amendment 42, Specification L-2790, where we I
17 did give them the discretion to use AWS D1.3, and they l
p 18 did exercise that option.
l 19 BOARD EXAMINATION
- 20 BY JUDGE COLE
) 21 Q And they regualified their procedures and qualified all i 22 their welders under that procedure?
- 23 A (WITNESS KURT2) Yes, Judge Cole, that's what they did, t.
24 a complete requalification.
l (
l l Sonntaq Repor ting Service, Ltd.
!. Geneva, Illinois 60134 t
(312) 232-0262
r 12928 V)
, 1- MR. BERRY: I have no more questions.
2 MR. GUILD: I have one more, Judge.
3 CROSS EXAMINATION
, 4 (Continued) 5 BY MR. GUILD:
6 Q Mr. Kur tz , are you aware of deficiencies that were 7 identified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission with 8 respect to the welding program of the heating, 9 ventilating and air conditioning contractor, Pullman 10 Company, Pullman . Sheet Metal Company of Braidwood?
[Jh 11 12 MR. G ALLO: Objection; beyond the scope of direct and even the question of Mr. Berry.
13 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman --
14 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Well, it seems to be, Mr.
15 G uild.
16 Is there some connection?
17 MR. GUILD : Yes, sir. I think there's 18 complete parallelism that will be demonstrated -here.
19 I agree that the original line of questioning was 20 outside of the scope. My obj ection was overruled.
21 I believe, in fairness, I should be allowed to 22 pursue a line that's been opened by counsel for the NRC 23 Staff.
( 24 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Well, the question is 1
Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd. _
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12929 1- whether this is along the line.
2 MR. GUILD: Indeed, I believe it is, Judge, 3- if I may be allowed to pursue it briefly.
4 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Well we'll allow one or two 5 questions.
6 MR. GUILD: I don' t recall whether the 7 answer -- was the question answered?
8 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Not yet.
9 BY MR. GUILD:
10 Q Mr. Kur tz , are you aware of deficiencies identified by 11 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission involving the welding
~12 program of the Pullman Sheet Metal Company at Braidwood?
13 A (WITNESS KURT2) I have a general knowledge that there 14 was some weld deficiencies identified by the Nuclear 15 Regulatory Commission.
16 0 Involving the --
17 A (WITNESS KURTZ) Welding program.
2 18 0 -- welding program of the EVAC contractor at Braidwood?
4 4
19 A (WITNESS KURTZ) Yes, sir.
20 0 You are aware that they involved problems with welder 21 qualifica tion ?
22 A (WITNESS KURTZ) I have no awareness of the -- of their 23 involving welder qualification.
( 24 Q How about problems with quality control inspection of Sonntaa Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 j (312) 232-0262
12930 I
- 1 1 ~ w elding?
2 A (WITNESS KURTZ) I'm not f amiliar with the details of 3 those.
4 Q' How about problems with the documentation of welding by 5 the HVAC contractor?
6 A (WITNESS KURTE)' Again, my knowledge is just a general 7 awareness there was an NRC Inspection Report that 8 identified deficiencies in the HVAC welding program.
9 Q All right.
10 I direct your attention -- the Board's attention to 11 Inspection Report 8309 -- at least the transmittal 1 12 letter which has been received in. evidence.
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: As what?
14 MR. GUILD: It's an Intervenor exhibit.
15 Mr. Chairman, let me find the number.
16 It was received during the course of Mr. O'Connor's 17 e xamina tion.
18 MR. BERRY: 88.
19 MR. GUILD: It's 88, Intervenors 88, Mr.
20 Ch airm an.
21 BY MR. GUILD:
22 0 I direct the witness' attention to the first page of the 23 transmittal letter for that Inspection Report, the 24 bottom paragraph.
Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l L .
l 12931 ,
I
,-- )
( 1 N' l
'l Mr. Kurtz, you can look on with me. " Th e 2 inspection revealed a number of deficiencies concerning 3 the verification of correct material for ASME piping 4 components, control of HVAC welding activities," et 5 cetera.
6 A (WITNESS KURTZ) Yes.
7 Q And at the' time the item of non-compliance identified in 8 Inspection Report 8309 was the Pullman Sheet Metal 9 Company, the HVAC contractor, welding to AWS Dl.l?
10 A (WITNESS KURTZ) I have no knowledge of the time context 11 of the changeover.
/'}
NJ 12 0 All right.
13 I'm going to show you an excerpt from Commonwealth 14 Edison Company's response to that item of non-compliance 15 beginning a t Page 17. The document's headed, 16 " Commonwealth Edison Company Response to Inspection 17 Report 8309, Item of Non-Compliance No. 3," and if you 18 look in the third paragraph down, does that refer to AWS 19 Dl.1-1977 as the applicable code under which the HVAC 20 contractor performed his duties?
21 MR. GALLO: Obj ection.
22 I renew my objection about this whole line being
. 23 outside the scope of the redirect now.
( 24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes. Mr. Guild, what is l Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
~
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12932
,~.
t J-V
, 1 the -- I'm afraid you are going to have to tell us what 2 you are driving at.
3 MR. GUILD: Well, Mr. Chairman, the fact of 4 the matter is that I think this document -- and I hope 5 the witness will confirm this -- establishes that it was 6 the Dl.1 code that the HVAC contractor ' welded to before 7 it was identified as the subj ect of items of 8 non-compliance involving f ailure to implement its
- 9 welding program effectively. Ther eaf ter, it adopted the 10 AWS Dl.3 Code.
11 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Is that correct, sir? Are
. 12 you aware of that?
13 A (WITNESS KURTZ) No, not -- no, I'm not.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: You are not aware of that.
15 MR. GUILD: Can the witness -- I had showed 16 the document to the witness.
17 J UDG E G ROSSMAN : W ell, is the document in 18 evidence here, Mr. Guild?
19 MR. GUILD: No, sir. It's a record of the 20 Nuclear Reculatory Commission.
21 I'd be happy to put it in; but I think it 22 establishes, if the witness -- if there's any doubt that 23 it was the D1.1 code that the HVAC contractor welded to 24 at the time of the item of non-compliance, perhaps Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12933
% ,/
1 Applicant can simply stipulate to that fact and perhaps 2 save some time.
3 Is there any dispute that it was the Dl.1 code?
4 MR. G ALLO : Well, I certainly don't have 5 those f acts at my fingertips; but my obj ection doesn' t 6 run to that point.
7 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Well, I don' t think the 8 witness is competent to establish those facts.
9 MR. GUILD: All right, sir.
10 Then I will ask this document be marked as an (n) 11 admission of a party opponent.
12 It's an excerpt of Edison's response to this item 13 of non-compliance, and it does so confirm that the Dl.1 14 code,1977 version, was used by the HVAC contractor at 15 the time of the item of non-compliance.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: But it doesn't appear to 17 establish that they switched to --
18 MR. GUILD: No, sir. That's the witness' 19 testimony, which I heard. for the first time today; but 20 it seems to establish that preceding the -- prior to the 21 change, the contractor for the nVAC scope of work 22 utilized the Dl.1 code.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: W ell, if I recall, the g 24 witness indicated that there was a switch from D1,1 --
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
s 12934 0
.l' MR. GUILD: Yes.
-2 J UDG E G ROSSMAN : -- prior to the
-3 incorporation of DDl.3, to the D -- Dl.1 including Dl.3; 4 isn't that correct? You did so testify?
5 A (WITNESS KURTT) Yes, sir.
6 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Okay. I don't think there's-7 anything f urther that we need.
8 MR. GUILD: My point is that at the time of 9 the special quality assurance inspection, the multiple 10 contractors at Braidwood viewed the RVAC contractor's 11 welding program, th ey, the HVAC contractor, were welding 12 to the Dl.1 code. Thereaf ter they changed. The program 13 was deficient to the Dl.1 code; and it seems to me 14 that's a fact that is established by this document and 15 is relevant.
16 JUDG E COLE: Relevant to what, Mr. Guild?
17 MR. GUILD: Well, the fact of the matter is, 18 Mr. Chairman, Dr. Cole, that we believe it was prudent i- 19 and a sound recommendation by Mr. Puckett that L. K.
20 Comstock, which had experienced welding program 21 implementation problems, likewise revise its program for s
22 welding thin gauge materials to the more appropriate ,
23 Dl.3 code; and now we have a witness who has established (Oj 24 that another contractor, the RVAC contractor, that Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
n' b 12935 4
s A
r i 1 ^ principally uses weld to thin- gauge material, saw fit to
~2 change its program to the Dl.3 code.
! ~3 We' think that there _are sound inferences that can i
4 be drawn f rom those sequence of events that support Mr.-
5 Puckett's position recommending the. Dl.3 code.
6' ' J UDG E G ROSSMAN: Okay.- The point is this is
} 7 .along the line of the questioning raised by Mr. Berry.
! 8' The witnesses aren't competent to go any further i 9- than they've already gone.
1
' 10 You are offering part of this document now?
11 MR. GUILD: Yes. I'd like to have that (v)
[ 12- marked and received by way of an admission of a party i opponent, understanding that the witnesses are not
- 14 sponsoring it but don't believe -- not believing they i-15 need to sponsor it to show that the Dl.1 code was being 16 used by- the EVAC contractor at the time of the 8309 i
L 17 repor t.
l: 18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. We are marking that i
i 19 for identification as Intervenors' Exhibit 136.
j- 20 (The document was thereupon marked l
21 Intervenors' Exhibit No.136 for 22 identification on the 30th of September,
! 23 1985.)
l 24 MR. GUILD: I am offering Pages 17 and 18 of l
l l l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. ,
Geneva, Illinois 60134 i
- (312) 232-0262 i
_ _ ~ . _ _. __. -. _ , . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
12936 i
7
- 1 . Edison's response.
I 2 I'd be happy to offer the whole document if someone.
4 3 wants it.-
$' 4 I don' t think _it's relevant.
4-
~
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Are there any
- 6 obj ections to the document?
7 MR. G ALLO: Well, I don't think it has any
- 8 probative value.
) 9- I mean, the witnesses already, as the Board has i 10 pointed out, testified that at one time the HVAC t 11 contractor used Dl.1 and then. switched to Dl.3.
! N. /
~ What Mr. Guild is trying to show from this set of t
'12 13 circumstances is an inference that the reason the switch
- 14 was made is because for the same reasons apparently that 15 his witness, Mr. Puckett, thought to recommend to 16 Comstock.
17 There's simply nothing in the record to support
!- 18 those inferences.
i 19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: That's correct, I don't i
l 20 think that we can find anything so far in the record to 21 support that; but, nevertheless, it also stands for the 22 same proposition that the witness has already testified l 23 to, and that is, that a change f rom Dl.1 to Dl.3 can be
- 24 facilitated, and that's basically what it represents.
j Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd. .
j Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
- n. _.. _ . _ . _ _ _
. . . . , ..- . - = . - . .- . .-.
h f
12937
/
1
- s,s 4
~
4 1 MR. GUILD: But it also establishes, Judge, 2 :that the -- not just that the sequence of events took p 3- place, but that the deficient welding program at the 4 HVAC contractor was to the Dl.1 code. Thereaf ter, the 3
{ 5 change was made to the Dl.3 code.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, I don't think we want 7' to get into that collateral issue as to whether --
- 8 because there was some deficiency in someone else's
- 9 program using Dl.1 without the inclusion of D1.3 10 suggests that the same deficiencies are here.
11' That is just too collateral, and we're not going to
)
12 be trying that here.
13 Mr. Berry.
j 14 MR. BERRY: Mr. Chairman, Staff does not 15 object to the- receipt in evidence of the document as far
! 16 as it is relevant or for the purpose showing it was 17 possible to facilitate that change.
l 18 I would only note, also, the other purpose for 19 which Mr. Guild stated that he believes the document is 20l relevant, it appears to the Staff that that would be 21 impermissible under the doctrine of subsequent remedial
- 22 repairs.
s 23 It's in the same -- it's analogous to that, and the l 24 Staff would just note that, and that would be its 1 -
i
! Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
- (312) 232-0262
i 12938
. h' (V) 1 position, that we would object to any receipt in 2 evidence if it's offered for that _particular purpose 3 that Mr. Guild has indicated; that by changing to Dl.3, 4 -that that's evidence that Dl.1 was deficient.
5 (Indica ting . )
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes.-
7 We will admit the document limited to its being 8 used to indicate that such a change from Dl.1 to Dl.3 9 could be facilitated, but we're not going to admit it 10 beyond that so as to require that any further evidence
[ 11 be put on to rebut any suggestion that, because there
-(
12 were deficiencies in the D1.1 usage in that case, that 13 there are any deficiencies in this case.
i 14 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I would reply that l 15 it be received generally by way of an of fer of proof.
16 I understand the Chair's ruling.
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. So we're admitting it 18 for the limited purpose, and we' re accepting an offer of 19 proof f rom you to go beyond that.
20 (The document was thereupon received into 21 evidence as Intervenors' Exhibit No.
22 136.)
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: You will make copies for 24 tomorrow's session?
i Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12939
.,x
~I
- \s'h 1 MR. GUILD: Yes, si r, I will.
2 J UDG E G ROSSMAN : So we won't be giving the 3 Reporter any copy at this time, nor will any of the 4 parties or the Board receive copies.
5 That appears to --
6 MR. G ALLO: I have a few questions on 7 redirect.
8 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Oh, okay.
9 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 10 BY MR. GALLO:
11 Q Mr. Kur tz , do you have an understanding of what caused V
12 the American Welding Society to issue D1.3?
13 A (WITNESS KURTZ) Yes, sir, I do.
14 Q Would you relate that understanding?
15 A (WITNESS KURTZ) There was a need from the steel decking 16 industry to have a code specific to the applications of 17 very thin sheet steels, t, 18 Much of this work is performed in the shop under 19 controlled conditions; and the industry -- this 20 particular segment of the industry wanted a code which 21 emphasized the process controls, ti:0 up-f ront 22 programmatic process controls, rather chan the
.23 production controls that AWS Dl.1 of fers.
24 Q Well, I was going to ask:
Sonntag Ret or ting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
. _ . __ ._ __ . ____ _._ . _ _ . _ _. _ _ _ . ~ - _ . _ _ -
12940 O
1 Why wasn't AWS Dl.1 sufficient for this purpose?
2 A (WITNESS KURT2) Oh, it was sufficient for this purpose; 3 but what it would require, though, is a large amount of 4 specific inspections.
5 There was test data developed which showed that for 6 these sheet steel applications, that many of the 7 inspection attributes defined in AWS Dl.1 just simply 8 weren't relevant for these particular material 9 applications, and instead what was relevant was the 10 control over the process of welding, 11 So, again, there was equivalent control here, but 12 it was just a different approach.
13 (Indica ting. )
14 Q You referred to the steel decking industry.
15 What segment of the industry is that?
16 A (WITNESS KURTZ) Oh, the roofing industry, that type of 17 thing. Siding would be another good example.
18 Q Mr. Kostal, in your role in the past as custodian of the 19 structural standards that included, among other things, 20 welding, do you agree with Mr. Kurtz' e xplana tion ?
21 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir, I do.
22 Q I'll direct this question to either one of you.
23 Was Dl.3 prompted at all by any segment of the 24 nuclear industry?
Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12941- <
1 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) No, sir. ,
2 A (WITNESS KURT4) No, sir, not at all.
l 3 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) It comes --
4 Q Mr. Kostal, you were asked several questions by Judge 5 Cole with respect to the reason for the deletion of Form 6 1701E with particular reference to the letter that's
- 7 attached to Mr. Treece's testimony from Mr. Westermeier.
8 What welding code did 1701E specify?
- 9 A (WI'INESS KOSTAL) It specified AWS.
10 0 And what edition of the AWS code did it specify?
11 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) It specified -- it has in 1701E --
i 12 and I'd have to pull it out to get the exact 13 paragraph -- it has similar provisions to the 1.107.7 l
, 14 that exists in L-2790, and there are two sections which o
' t 15 state in that standard to follow the latest edition of
- - 16 the code that exists at the date of the purchase order 17 contract.
l 18 0 In the context, then, of the contract -- and I believe 19 at this point we're talking about Ernst --
20 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes.
21 0 -- what edition of the code would be applicable under 22 that version of 1701E?
! 23 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) AWS DI.1-75.
24 Q Well, then, if you refer to the letter signed by Mr.
Sonntaa Repor ting Service. Ltd.
. Geneva, Illinois 60134
< (312) 232-0262
- . . - _ - _ . = _ . .- -- - - . -. . - . . . . --
12942
.O gj ?
1 Westermeier, just what was the basis for the :
2 controv ersy, as you understand it, that caused a i
3 deletion of 1701E?
. 4 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) The only thing that I could perceive 5 to be the controversy was 1701E relates to the welding 6 of structural steel components, major building 7 components.
8 When the award for the electrical work was made, i 9 there were no large structural steel welding components.-
10 Therefore, to avoid, I believe, just -- it was 11 deleted -- since there were no large components, it was 12 deleted as a reference for use.
13 (Indica ting .)
14 MR. GUILD: Obj ection, Mr. Chairman.
15 I move to strike the last question and answer. Th e 16 witness clearly is not competent to speculate why this ,
17 controversy developed.
18 I think in his own answer he admits that he is 19 specula ting ; and it has no probative value.
20 BOARD EXAMINATION 21 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
22 Q Well, what's the basis for your answer?
23 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) The basis for my answer is --
24 Q Are you speculating or do you have any knowledge, actual Sonntaa Reporting Se rvice. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 .
~
12943
/s 1 knowled ge?
2 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Well, it's common practice that we 3 generally include in each of the specifications 1701 as 4 somewhat of a catchall standard in case there is some 5 larger structural welding that's taking place.
6 We included it in the structural standards, of 7 course, in the structural specifications. We included 8 it in the mechanical as well as the electrical.
9 It's a standard document that exists within Sargent 10 & Lundy that's generated f rom the structural department
() 11 12 that outlines how to handle structural steel welding for building components, for structural members, and that's 13 why it was added as a reference within the body of 14 L-2790.
15 (Indica ting. )
16 0 Well, how do you know that that's why it was added?
17 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Well, I commented on the 18 specifications back in 1975, and that was one of the 19 reasons we added it, because we weren't sure if we were 20 going to have larger structural members. So we added it 21 as a reference so that just in case one could see what 22 the requirements were going to be.
23 MR. GUILD: What I understand is the subject 24 of the speculation, Mr. Chairman, is why they deleted it Sonntaa Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12944 in (a
1 and then added it back.
2 He may be able to say why they added it in the 3 first instance; but that's not the pending question.
4 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Yes.
5 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
.6 Q What is your knowledge based on as to why it was 7 deleted, Mr. Kostal?
8 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Purely based on the letter from Mr.
9 Westermeier requesting it to be deleted.
10 JUDG E GROSSNEN: Okay.
2 I ) 11 So you are basing it all on that letter.
J 12 Obj ection sustained.
13 BY MR. G ALLO:
14 Q Mr. Kostal, are the weld inspection requirements under 15 L-2790 the same as under 1701E?
16 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) The L-2790 references AWS. 1701 17 expands upon the requirements of AWS. It includes 18 additional inspection requirements above those that are 19 indicated in AWS.
20 0 What are those additional requirements?
21 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) The additional requirements are in the 22 area of.non-destructive testing as they relate to 23_ structural steel welding.
( 24 The AWS addresses visual weld inspection, and the Sonntaa Repor tino Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12945 f}
O 1 provisions of 1701E as well as subsequent revisions 2 expand upon that and give you a series of additional 3 requirements for inspection depending on the level of 4 welding that you are performing, such as a full 5 penetration butt weld. Ther e we r equir e 100 per cent 6 non-destructive testing using either UP or other means, 7 mag particle or, you know -- and basically the 1701 is 8 additional requirements that we, as a company, Sargent &
9 Lundy, feel are important to inspect in the area of 10 structural welding.
-:I V ) -11 4
Q -Does anyone on the panel know whether this difference
+
12 that Mr. Kostal just testified to was the cause of the 13 controversy identified in Mr. Westermeier's letter?
14 A (WITNESS KUR TT) No.
15 A (WITNESS TREECE) No.
16 MR. G ALLO: No f urther questions.
17- JUD3 E GROSSMAN: Excuse me. l 18 BOARD EXAMINATION 19 BY J UDGE GROSSMAN:
20 Q Mr. Kostal, did I understand you to say that Form 1701 21 has that same standard provision requiring the latest 22 edition of the. specifications be used? l 23 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
24 Q Could you tell me when Rev G to Form 1701 was adopted?
l l
Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd. l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12946
- \
v
/
1 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) I'd have to pull it out. I just don' t 2 have the -- 170lG was revised and issued on December 20, 3 1977.
4 0 Could you --
5 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) If you turn to Page -- do you have 6 that document?
7 JUDG E COLE: Yes, we have it.
8 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) If you turn to the general conditions 9 under Article 1.1.1 and read the -- this has a slightly 10 dif ferent sets of words, but it says that all welding 11 shall conform to the requirements of this particular
[J')
12 specification unless otherwise indicated in the project 13 spec or in design drawings.
14 There are slightly different words that exist in 15 the Version E.
16 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
17 Q And when, again, was the date on which the 1701 was 18 rea dopted ?
19 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) The date for readoption of 1701 was in 20 the issuance of ECN 858, which was dated 10/11/78.
21 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Okay.
22 Does anyone have any further questions?
l 23 MR. GUILD: I'm afraid so, Mr. Chairman.
- pm
(,
j 24 RECROSS EXAMINATION l
x_/
l l
l l Sonntaq Repo r ting Service, Ltd.
60134 Geneva, Illinois (312) 232-0262
.2 , , . . _ = - -_ __ _ _ . - _- .____. ~. _ ._ _ _ _
L 12947 as N.)
- 1. BY MR. GUILD:
2 Q Mr . Ku r tz , let's talk some more about the whys and 3 wherefores of- the Dl.3.
4 What are the attributes that, in your opinion --
5 attributes under the Dl.1 code that are not relevant to 6' welding 1 thin gauge material?
, ,7 A -(WITNESS KURTZ) Excuse me.~ I didn' t hear you.
! 8 Q' What-are the attributes that, in your opinion, are not 9 relevant to welding thin gauge material which are 14 .specified under the Dl.1 code?
I 11 A (WITNESS KURT2) Well, you know, if- you would look at
- 12 the inspection criteria for the D1.3 code, they have i
13 - four specific criteria listed in it.
- . 14
- The inspection criteria for the D1.1 code has, I i
15 believe, eight ~ criteria listed in it as far as the -
16 characteristics for-visual inspection.
(Indica ting.)
~
' 17 -
n 18. Q Can you tell me what.those are or do you have the 1
19 documents available?
12 0 A I- don' t have D,1.3 with me.
21 MR. GUILD: Off the record for a second, f 22 (There followed a discussion outside the 23 -
record.)
4 124 MR.-GUILD: Back on the record.
.e- Sonntaa Reportino Se rvice. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 232-0262 (312)
12948-f3
]
1 BY MR. GUILD:
2 0 I'm handing you Applicant's Exhibit 14, Mr. Kurtz.
3 (Indica ting .)
4 A (WITNESS KURTZ) Yes. If you would turn to Page 9 of 5 Exhibit 14, Paragraph 4.5 is entitled " Production Weld 6 Acceptance Criteria," and it lists four specific 7- attributes.
8 Q Could you identify those, please ?
9 A (WITNESS KURTZ) Cracks, minimum reinforcement, 10 undercut, call it weld profile.
11 (Indica ting . )
( )
12 Q What additional weld attributes are required to be 13 considered under the visual acceptance criteria of the 14 Dl.1 code ?
l 15 A (WITNESS KURTZ) Okay. Those criteria are contained i
i 16 in -- I don't have an exhibit reference, but it's l 17 Paragraph 8.15 of AWS Dl.l.
18 Q Yes.
i 19 A (WITNESS KURTZ) They reference cracks, fusion, craters, l
l 20 profiles, piping porosity.
[ 21 Q I'm sorry?
22 A (WITNESS KURTS) Piping porosity.
l l 23 Q Piping, P-I-P-I-N-G?
24 A (WITNESS KURTZ) Right.
L i
Sonntaq Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
s 12949 i
1 And underrun.
2 I'm sorry. I skipped weld profiles, . which would 3 include undercut.
4 Q So which are the D1.1 acceptance criteria that are not ,
5 relevant to welding thin gauge material?
6 A (WITNESS KURTZ) Well, the two that leap out immediately 7 _ are fusion and porosity, piping porosity.
l 8 0 What is piping porosity ?
9 A (WITNESS KURT2) Piping porosity is a phenomenon caused t
~
10 by gas being entrapped in the molten metal and then 11- coming up to the surface during the solidification
(
12 process, so what you have then is a round hole f rom the 13 bottom going up tangentially to the weld.
14 Q It's not surf ace- porosity, but it's porosity that 15 extends deep into the weld-metal?
16 A (WITNESS KURTZ) That's what piping porosity is.
17 Q fu) is the effect, then, of using the more limited 18 inspection -- ' individual acceptance criteria of the Dl.3 19 Code to r equire -- strike tha t.
20 Is the effect, then, of providing the reduced
- 21. number of mandatory acceptance criteria under the Dl.3 22 code to reduce the amount of individual inspection 23 that's! r equired 'to that code?
) 24 A' (WITNESS KURIZ) Well, no. The code requires that the Sonntaq Repor ting Se rvice, Ltd.
p Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
(\
t d
1 welds be subject to visual weld inspection. Tha t's 2 consistent in AWS Dl.1 and Dl.3.
3 0 All right, si r.
4 But fewer attributes for the Dl.3?
5 A (WITNESS KUR12) Yes, there are.
6 Q It simplifies the inspection process --
7 A (WITNESS KURT2) Ye s --
8 Q -- under the Dl.3?
9 A (WITNESS KURTZ) -- in that respect.
10 Q Now, when did the HVAC contractor at Braidwood exercise n)
(V 11 its option, under your Sargent & Lundy specification, to 12 choose the Dl.3 code?
13 A (WITNESS KURTZ) I have no idea of the time.
14 Q None of the members of the panel know?
15 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) No, si r.
16 Q Mr. Treece ?
~
17 A (WITNESS TREECE) No, sir.
18 Q Now, when you mentioned the steel decking industry, you 3
19 didn't intend for that to be an exclusive reference to 20 those who would commonly employ the Dl.3 code in the 21 performance of their work?
22 A (WITNESS KURTZ) No, not as a reference to those who l 23 would commonly employ it.
t (M g j 24 I believe the question was asked as to what was the 4
Sonntaq Reporting Se rvi ce, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
1; 12951 n
s 1 ' motivation for developing an alternate code such as-2 Dl.3.
-3_ Q All right, sir.
4 In fact, others who employ- commonly thin gauge 5 metals in their work would come under the D1.3 co'dd,
-6 such as heating, ventilating and air conditioning 7 contractors who use thin gauge ducting material?
8 A (WITNESS KURTZ) Well, they can use that code, . they can -
9 use other codes.
10' There's ' a multiplicity .of ' codes .for thin gauge
- 11. applica tions.
12i Q- Yes.
! -13 A (WITNESS KURTZ) For example, within the' f ramework of
- 14' the American Welding Society, there is an AWS D91, and -
15' AWS D91 ~ is a welding code for; sheet steel, j 16 Within other applications, there's -- SMATNA is the l 17 acronym. I can' t recall what it all stands for, though; i
18 but they -- they have other references to different 19 types of welding requirements; and, in fact, you could i
l- 20 even be using ASME Section 9 for this - type of 21 applica tion.
22 The point being is there is a multiplicity of codes -
23 for this application that's in use in any number of i
24 different industries.
t i
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. t c Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12952 J-V l- Q All right, si r. But that really wasn't my question.
2 My' question was that other industries, aside from 3 the roofing industry, the steel decking industry, as you 4 called it, would utilize the Dl.3 code in the 5 performance of work with thin gauge material?
6 A (WITNESS KURTZ) Yes, it's a code that's available and 7 can be used in any application -- any number of 8 applica tions.
-9 0 Are you aware of Commonwealth Edison Company taking the 10 position that it was appropriate to rely upon the
[ 11 controls over the welding -- I'm trying to use the terms 12 tha t' you employed, Mr. Kur tz -- process controls as 13 opposed to production controls with respect to verifying 14' the quality of the welding work by the HVAC contractor 15 at Braidwood?
16 MR. GALLO: Obj ection; beyond the scope of my 17 redirect.
.18 MR. G UILD: Mr. Chairman, it seems to be a 19 perfectly appropriate application of the testimony that
.20 Mr. Gallo elicited, and that was that the purpose for 21 the Dl.3 code was to emphasize process controls over 22 production controls, and my question goes to whether or 23 not Commonwealth Edison Company itself advocated 24 emphasizing reliance on process controls.
Sonntaq Repor ting Se rvi ce, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12953 i
\j l JUDGE GROSSMAN: We'll allow the question.
2 A (WITNESS KURTZ) I'm not aware of any position made by 3 Commonwealth Edison, whether or not there is a position 4 made by Commonwealth Edison on that issue.
5 BY MR. GUILD:
6 Q You are not aware of whether that was, in substance, the 7 position Edison took with regard to questions raised by 8 the NRC with respect to the HVAC contractor welding 9 code?
10 A No, I'm not aware either way on that. I have no
/^.
11 knowledge of tha t.
(
12 MR. GUILD: All right, sir.
13 Tha t's all I have, Mr. Ch airman.
14 BOARD EXAMINATION 15 BY JUDGE GROSMAN 16 Q Mr . Ku r tz , the Code 1.3 didn' t j ust simplify the 17 inspection, didn't it also change the r equirements?
18 A (WITNESS KURTZ) Well, in terms of -- I don't really 19 like the word simplification; and when we're talking 20 about things like process controls versus production 21 con tr ols, by the necessity of- this type of testimony, it 22 represents an oversimplification.
23 Now, th e --
24 Q Well, I'm referring specifically to your testimony with Sonntac Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
~ . _ _ . - - - - -. .-
12954 1
O S
1: regard to the four attributes of inspection under 1.3 2 i .versus the eight or so under 1.1; and the implication I t: 3 got was that they just. basically deleted four 4 req ui rements.
5 And I'm asking you whether that's' the case or j 6 whether there really was a change, not just a 7 simplifica tion.
8 Were the r equirements also changed ?
9 A (WITNESS KURTZ) No. The requirements -- well, let .me 10 just- state clearly that the requirements for visual l
[N -11 inspection did not change with either codo; that a 100 12 percent visual inspection is still required; that that's 13 the specific attributes and how those attributes are 2
14 carried out.
15 Some of the numbers did change.
4 16 Q Okay. That's what I was referring to, the attributes..
17 It wasn' t j ust deleting f our attributes, but the 18 attrributes that were adopted under 1.3 effectuated some 19 change -- ,
20 A (WITNESS KURTZ) Yes.
21 0 -- over what the attributes had been previously?
22 A (WITNESS KUR TS) Yes.
. 23 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Okay.
24 I take it there are no further questions and we can i Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
1 Geneva, Illinois 60134 i
(312) 232-0262
., . -. ,. - .-.~ .
l i
~12955
- 1
_(N !
! \s /
J
=1. e xcuse the panel.
i 2 Thank you very much for testifying.
- - 3 (Witnesses e xcused.)
4 J UDG E G ROSSMAN: ^ That, basically,_ concludes 5- today's session except for one item.
1 6 Back to Mr. McGregor.
7 Mr. Berry, I assume -- well, whoever is 'in contact -
i 8 with _Mr. McGregor, we've made it' very clear that we are-9 not entertaining any questioning with regard to the ,
10 whistle-blowing aspect that's been raised today.
11 Now, whoever does talk to Mr. McGregor with regard 12 to further . testifying here ought to be in a position to 13 assure him that no such questions will be entertained l-
.14 here; that if any questions are posed with regard to I
15- that area, _ they will be overruled . by - the Board; and that 16 we will instruct counsel before the questioning that 17 that's just not an appropriate area.
18 So I think that that ought to be made plain to Mr.
[- 19 McGregor, and perhaps he would be more willing to
( 20 testify here; and, of course, all you have to do is show.
l 21 him the transcript of these remarks and/or to his >
22 attorney, so perhaps we will be seeing him here shortly.
23 MR. G ALLO: Well, he shouldn't need that. He 24 was present when the Board overruled my questions in
! e
!. Sonntaq Repor tina Se rvice, Ltd.
! Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l
.\
12956
(,,
o 1 : tha t ve ry area.
2' J UDG E G ROSSMAN : Well, that was one time; but 3- he can be assured that that will continue to be the 14 situation in the future..
5 MR. MILLER:- .Your Honor, in my conversation 6 'with Mr. Geocaris, he has, in fact, asked whether there 7 would be any objection by any of the parties to him 8 . appearing on behalf of Mr. McGregor when Mr.. McGregor 9 was questioned.
10 I told him I couldn' t speak -for the other parties;
~
11 that the Applicant certainly had no objection to that--
12 procedure, and that I was confident that the Intervenors h 13 :and the Staff would likewise have no objection.
14 JUDG E GROSSMAN: -Well, the Board will rule 15 right now that he is certainly entitled to have -counsel 16 here, and under the circumstances, he'd be advised to t-
- 17 have counsel present.
18 That concludes our session today'. We'll adj ourn i 19 until 9:00 o' clock tomorrow morning.
I 20 MR. BERRY: Before we do that, Mr. Chairman, I 21 just want to make clear the Staff has no objection to 22 Mr. McGregor being represented by counsel certainly in ,
23 his personal and private capacity, g 24 I just want to make clear again that the Staff
, Sonntaq Reporting Se rvi ce, Ltd.
[' Geneva, Il31nois 60134 (312) 232-0262 t_.__. . . _ . _ _ , _ . _ . _ . _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ . _ . _ . _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _..._..__. _
12957 1 counsel represents the interests.of the Staff; that I'm 2 sure that poses no problem; but lest there be any 3 confusion, I just wanted to make our position clear on 4 that.
5 MR. GUILD: Well, Mr. Chairman, let add this:
6 I think the Chair is correct, of course, in 7 reiterating the point that you just made; and I think, 8 if I were in Mr. McGregor's shoes, I would probably take
/r 9 some comfort in that; but the f act remains, as stated by 10 Mr. Berry, related by Mr. Treby, apparently that Mr.
11 McGregor is apprehensive about being within the net of 12 some OIA investigation about whistle blowing.
13 So whether this Board does or does not allow an 14 inquiry into that area does not remove what may be an 15 apparent cloud over Mr. McGregor and influence his 16 tes timo ny.
17 Th a t, I think, is the evil, and that's the same 18 evil that applied when this pr evious unsubstantiated OIA 19 investigation was hanging over his head.
20 JJ^.E GROSSMAN: W ell, the point Mr. Guild is 21 making is that there are two aspects of this, one being 22 the direct threat that anything elicited here might be 23 used against him, which we've covered; and the other l 24 point being that any investigation is a threat to a Sonntaa Reoortino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 -
- . - . _ - _ . . .-.- .. __ _ - = _ _ - - .
E 12958 l l
.~
1 witness here, whatever the subject matter, and is 2 somewhat of an inhibiting f actor.
3 And to the extent that the investigation can be 4 concluded speedily, I think that's what we would desire 5 in order that Mr. McGregor be able to testify 6 uninhibitedly.
7 MR. BERRY: I certainly agree with the 8 Chairman, you know, that in the ideal world, the best 9 situation is for a witness to be able to testify, to 10 appear, without any inhibition.
( 1 11 Unf ortunately, you know, concurrent with our G'~
12 hearing there appears to be an investigation being 13 conducted by other offices of the Nuclear Regulatory 14 Commission under way.
15 Staff has made it clear, I'm certain, on this 16 record a number of times that the NRC will not tolerate, 17 will not allow, the testimony given in this proceeding 18 to be used against any witness, whether prof fered by 19 Applicant or Intervenors or produced by the Staff 20 it s el f.
21 It is not our purpose here, and' I won' t -- I don' t l
22 mean to convey the impression that we would even condone l 23 such activity, f')s
( 24 Of course, that doesn' t mean, you know, that may l
l l Sonntag Repor ting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 j (312) 232-0262
R 12959
. - an
'l not remove any _ subjective apprehension -on the .part of 2 any particular witness that may be involved or, you 3 know, related in any way to any -investigation.
4: So :we will ' convey to Mr. McGregor the subj ect of 5 the Board's rulings. I believe that his attorney may 6 even be aware of th'at, be aware of the Board's ruling on 7 this particular matter.
8' We will make . arrangements to make available this 9 transcript to him.
10 I would only note for the Board that there's -- the s
- 11 way the' office of Inspections and Audits works cis it's 12 hard for me to predict when that investigation will be 13 completed. -
14 I believe under the circumstances that- the parties 15 and the Board can work out a satisfactory arrangement 16 that would maybe obviate the need for the completion of 17' the investigation before Mr. McGregor resumes.
18 I don' t know if we will come to any agreement on
-19 tha t, but certainly Staff is willing, you know, to 20- engage in this process.
-21 I'm sure we can come up with an arrangement or 22 circumstances that will hasten Mr. McGregor's return 23- here.
24 I believe that the conditions that the Board set Sonntaa Repor ting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4 12960 s
LJ
, 1 down, foreclosing any inquiry into .the subject of the -
2 investigations or any inquiry into matters that may 3 possibly incriminate a witness -- I believe those are a 4 satisfactory protection; but if there are other 5 conditions that will add greater protection, Staff 6 counsel would certainly be willing to entertain those as 7 well.
8 MR. GALLO: Well, your Honor, I can only 9 repeat that the Board's assumption and Mr. Guild's 10 assumption that Mr. McGregor is concerned about these
.h '
11 areas.may be ccrrect, but it seems to me the best way ~to 12 find out is to have him say so himself through his 13 counsel, so tha t --
3 14 MR. GUILD: He has.
15 MR. G ALLO: He has not.
16 MR. GUILD: He told Mr. Treby.
17 MR. G ALLO: All we have here are disparate 18 reportings f rom Mr. Miller and Mr. Berry; and I believe 19 that it's highly appropriate to get the record set 20 straight so we don' t delay this proceeding on a f alse 21 ass umption.
22 MR. GUILD: It seems to me the Staff does 23 represent him for this matter; and the witness has s
.(-s) 24. apparently communicated throug'a Staff counsel that he Sonntaq R epor ting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12961
{d
\
i 1 has this apprehension.
2 JUDG E GROSSMAN: I don' t think it's profitable 3 to go into this any further until we. hear from Mr.
4 McGregor further as to whether he will appear, either 5 from him directly or from his counsel.
6 So I take it we finally can adj ourn until tomorrow 7 a t 9:00 o' clock.
8 (WHEREUPON, at 4:40 P. M., the hearing of 9 the above-entitled matter was continued 10 to the 1st day of October,1986, at the 11 hour of 9:00 A. M.)
12
-13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Sonntaq Repo r ting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 232-0262 (312)
NO PAGE NUMBER CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER 0
This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING: BRAIDWOOD STATION UNITS 1 4 2 COMMONWEALTil EDISON DOCKET NO.: 50-456-457/0L PLACE: CIIICAGO, ILLINOIS v' DATE: TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 1986-were held as herein appears, and that this is the originai transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(sigt)_
(TYPED) hn d. h e %
Gary L. Sonntag Official Reporter Reporter's Affiliation
(~~
k )
N /
%